(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees records, 1836-2010"

i 



i 



Date 

January 1 1 
January 25 
January 31 
February 1 
February 3 
February 28 
March 1 
March 15 
March 15 
March 22 
March 22 
March 22 
March 22 
April 5 
April 19 
April 19 
April 27 
May 3 
May 3 
May 16 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



1978 COMMITTEE MINUTES 



INDEX 



Committee 



Budget & Finance 

Budget & Finance/Faculty & Ed. Policy 

Buildings & Grounds 



Executive 



Audits 



Budget & Finance 
Faculty & Educational Policy 
Buildings & Grounds 
Faculty & Educational Policy 



Audits 



Long-Range Planning 



Student Affairs 



Budget & Finance 

Budget & Finance/Faculty & Ed. Policy 

Faculty & Educational Policy 

Long-Range Planning 

Student Affairs/Budget & Finance 



Executive 



Faculty & Educational Policy 
Buildings & Grounds 



Time 

12:00 noon 
11:00 a.m. 

3:00 p.m. 
11:00 a.m. 
10:00 a.m. 

3 :00 p.m. 

1 :45 p.m. 
11:00 a.m. 

2:00 p.m. 

9:00 a.m. 
10:30 a.m. 

1:00 p.m. 

3:00 p.m. 
10:30 a.m. 
10:30 a.m. 

3:00 p.m. 

9:00 a.m. 
11:00 a.m. 

1 :30 p.m. 
11:00 a.m. 






Pages 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



INDEX (continued) ~ 1978 COMMITTEE MINUTES 



Committee 



Date 




May 


17 


May 


18 


May 


24 


May 


30 


May 


30 


June 


14 


June 


14 


June 


21 



July 10 
August 2 
August 2 



Long-Range Planning 



Audits 



Faculty & Educational Policy 



Student Affairs 



Budget & Finance 

Faculty & Educational Policy 

Long-Range Planning 

Audits 



Executive 



Faculty & Educational Policy 



Executive 



September 6 Budget & Finance 

September 13 Student Affairs 

September 13 Faculty & Educational Policy 

September 13 Executive 

September 14 Audits 

September 20 Faculty & Educational Policy 

September 27 Student Affairs/Budget & Finance 

September 27 Budget & Finance/Buildings & Grounds 



October 4 



Executive 



October 30 Budget & Finance 



Time 

10:00 a.m 
11:00 a.m 

2:30 p.m 
10:00 a.m. 

2:00 p.m. 
10:00 a. mi 

3:00 p.m. 

9:00 a.m. 

2:00 p.m, 
11:00 a.m 

1 :30 p.m. 
10:00 a.m, 
10:30 a.m. 
12:00 noon 

1 :30 p.m 

9:00 a.m, 
10:00 a. mi 
10:30 a.m, 
1 1:30 a.m, 

1:00 p.m. 
11:00 a.m 



-ii- 



Pages 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



INDEX (continued) — 1978 COMMITTEE MINUTES 



Date 



Committee 



November 1 Buildings & Grounds 



November 1 Executive 



November 1 Budget & Finance 

November 8 Long -Range Planning 

November 22 Budget & Finance 

November 29 Student Affairs/Faculty & Ed. Policy 

December 4 Buildings & Grounds 

December 5 Budget & Finance 



Time 

10:00 a.m. 
11:00 a.m. 

1 :45 p.m. 
10:00 a.m. 

2:00 p.m . 

2:00 p.m. 

2:30 p.m. 

7:30 p.m . 



Pages 



• • • 

■in- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



I 



I 






1 



I 



i 



I 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 

January 11, 1978; 12:00 p.m. 
Southeast Conference Room 
University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Committee and Committee Staff: Chairman Crain; President Patterson; 



Trustees Marks and Troy; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 
Committee Members Absent: Trustees Dennis, Gordon and Spiller 



Other Trustees : Trustees Batiste and Romer; Ms. Pinck represent- 
ing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration: Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and 



Associate Vice President 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director of OBIS; Mr. DeNyse, Director 



of Personnel; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 
UM/Boston: Mr. Baxter; Vice Chancellor for Administration and 



Finance 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 12:35 p.m. Chairman Crain 
called for discussion on the agenda item, Salary Adjustments for 
Trust Fund Employees . Ms. Hanson said the proposed action was in 



response to the recently passed Salary Scale Bill, Chapter 872 of 
the Acts of 1977, which mandated salary adjustments for non-union 
employees, and was in line with the University policy of treating 
all employees equitably. Reserves had been built up in the Trust 
Funds in anticipation of the legislative action, thus there was 
money available to cover the adjustments. 

Chairman Crain said that while there was not a quorum 
present the Committee could make a recommendation to the Board. 
There was no further discussion, and it was moved and seconded, 
and 

VOTED : To recommend that, in accordance with past 
University policy and practice, the Board 
of Trustees authorize the President of the 
University to make salary adjustments for 
all non-union Trust Fund employees, comparable 
to but not exceeding the salary adjustments 
provided for State employees in CH. 872 of 
the Acts of 1977; provided, however, that 
sufficient trust funds to meet the cost of 
such salary increases are available. 



Salary Adjust- 
ments for Trust 
Fund Employees 



H 



B&F 
1/11/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then dealt with the agenda item, Fund 
Transfers . Ms. Hanson said the proposed transfer would partially 



cover the salary of the Vice President for Management, 
was no discussion, and it was moved and seconded and 



There 



I 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 
authorize the President to transfer 
$10,000 from account 205905 to account 
205510. 



There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. 




John F. Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary 



I 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE AND 
COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

January 25, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



ATTENDANCE: Committees and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President 

Patterson; Trustees Batiste, Burack, Crain and Marks; Mr. Schulman 
representing Trustee Fielding; Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, Assis- 
tant Secretary; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer, Dennis, Gordon, 
Morgenthau, Spiller and Winthrop 

Other Trustees: Trustee Baker; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Management; Ms. Hanson, 
Budget Director and Associate Vice President 



I 



UM/Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor and Provost; Mr. Beatty, 
Director, OBIS; Mr. Phillips, President, Graduate Student Senate; 
Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/ Bos ton : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor, 
Administration and Finance 

UM/Worcester : Mr, Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance 

The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. Chairman 
Troy said that the Faculty and Educational Policy contingent 
present had a chore to perform which could be done quickly. With 
out discussion it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
and ratify the Preliminary Graduation Lists of 
February 1978, UM/Amherst, as certified by the 
recorder of that campus and contained in Doc. 
T78-047. 

The meeting then discussed Commonwealth Professorships,! 
and Salaries of Former Senior Administrators . Chairman Troy said 
this was a matter which had been discussed by the Trustees from 
time to time without ever having arrived at a firm policy. The 
time now seemed ripe to remedy this lack. The joint meeting was 
seen as a first step in this direction. 



Commonwealth 
Professorships , 
and Salaries 
of Former 
Senior Ad- 
ministrators 



B&F Comm. 
F&EP Comm. 
1/25/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Lynton said the position of Commonwealth Professor 
had been created prior to the University being granted fiscal 
autonomy. At that time the State Bureau of Personnel agreed to 
classify Commonwealth Professors two grades above full professors, 
thus enabling the University to attract or retain outstanding 
faculty members through higher salaries. After 1962, when the 
University obtained fiscal autonomy, a special title to award 
higher salaries was no longer needed. As of that time the title 
became purely honorific. In a number of instances the title was 
given to administrators with an academic background. 

The material distributed, Mr. Lynton continued, con- 
tained criteria and method of selection initially used in appoint- 
ing Commonwealth Professors, as well as a list of all current 
Commonwealth Professors; a list of administrators who in recent 
years have changed to faculty status; and information of the 
practices at other public universities. 

As had been mentioned, Mr. Lynton said, the University 
had no specific policy in this matter. However, the pattern has 
been that there was a fairly substantial reduction in salary on 
leaving an administrative post. This was, in part, due to the 
change from a calendar year to an academic year appointment and 
to the fact that the salary should be comparable to the salary of 
faculty with similar seniority and in a similar discipline. 

At other institutions, Mr. Lynton continued, a variety 
of policies were followed. The City University of New York and 
the University of California served as examples of one type of 
policy. Both have a fixed scale of additional renumeration above 
academic year faculty salary for calendar year administrative 
service. At the end of such service the additional renumeration 
ceases and the individual receives a faculty salary appropriate 
to her/his faculty status. 

At the University of Wisconsin and in the State Univer- 
sity of New York system the faculty salaries of those leaving ad- 
ministrative posts are negotiated on the basis of comparisons of 
the salaries of persons generally in the same rank. At Wisconsin, 
any salary which exceeds the average salary or is larger than 82 
percent of the administrative salary must be approved by the 
President . 

Chairman Troy asked if the practice at University of 
Massachusetts was to make an adjustment between an academic year 
appointment rather than a calendar year appointment. Mr. Lynton 
said this was not the case. In most cases, particularly recent 
ones, the adjustment had been smaller than one based only on a 
calendar adjustment. The salary for a calendar year appointment 



-2- 



■ 



I 



i 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



was 15 percent larger than that for an academic year appointment. 
In the last three cases at the University, the salary had been 
reduced to the top of the salary scale of the appropriate academic 
rank. 

Chairman Troy asked if consideration was given to the 
length of time one had served in an administrative position. Mr. 
Lynton said this was not a factor in arriving at the salary ad- 
justment, however, in the case of Dr. Hamilton, former Chancellor 
and Vice Chancellor of the Boston campus, his adminsitrative leave, 
given so that he could catch up on his academic work, was based 
on his length of service as an administrator. 

Trustee Crain said that he had calculated the percentage 
change in the salaries noted in the support material, as these 
were more useful as indicators. In the case of Dr. Lederle the 
adjustment was 13.2 percent less; Dr. Tippo was 4.5; Dr. Broderick 
11.8; Dr. Marshall 7.4; Dr. Hamilton 4.1; and Dr. Spaethling 11.3 

Trustee Marks said he was aware of the original concept 
of the Commonwealth Professorships. However, there seemed to be 
a tendency to fill the available slots with former administrators. 
This was a matter which should be examined. President Patterson 
said he agreed with this wholeheartedly. The Trustees should 
deliberately move away from the practice of using the Commonwealth 
Professorships for former administrators and go back to the origi 
nal concept of the professorships as a recognition of fine teach- 
ing and research. The University really needed such an accommo- 
dation. 

Chairman Troy said another thing to be considered was 
that of administrative leave to enable the person to regain touch 
with the scholarly discipline. Such leave could well be a better 
way of making a just and equitable settlement than a salary ad- 
justment. Trustee Burack asked if, in his experience, Chairman 
Troy had found that the time off was used to regain touch with 
the scholarly discipline. Chairman Troy said the time was so usee 
and often very fruitfully. 

Trustee Burack said it seemed to her that to simply state 
that the leave was for a given purpose allowed the former adminis- 
trator to use the time as she/he pleased. This could be seen as 
a subterfuge. She said it should be remembered that the individ- 
uals became administrators voluntarily and were given a higher 
salary. It seemed a dubious proposition to pay higher salaries to 
those who chose to go into administration and then to compensate 
them for loss of time in scholarly pursuits. This was not fair 
to the other professors. Chairman Troy said this was where the 
length of service entered into consideration. Dr. Lederle, for 
example, had served, and served arduously, for a period of ten 
years and then returned to teaching. He said such a case seemed 



-3- 



B&F Comm. 
F&EP Comm. 
1/25/78 



B&F Comm. 
F&EP Comm. 
1/25/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to him to be very different from that of a person who served as a 
dean or chancellor for one or two years. 



Trustee Marks said there was another fuzzy area in 
this matter — that having to do with a requirement to return to 
active service after an administrative leave. Presumably there 
were guidelines which required a person to return to the University 
for a stated period similar to those applying to sabbaticals. 
If there were no such guidelines, administrative leave was, in 
effect, severance pay. This had never been contemplated by any- 
one including the Legislature. 

Mr. Lynton said the first time administrative leave was 
granted was in the case of Dr. Hamilton. The reason the Board 
chose to do this was to avoid setting a precedent of granting a 
sabbatical leave to someone who had not been with the University 
for at least six years. Drs. Lederle and Tippo, at the conclusion 
of their administrative careers, each had more than six years' 
service and were granted regular sabbatical leaves. Thus, it 
could be said that the University had an implied policy which 
held that a person, with faculty rank, who had served at least 
six years as an administrator was entitled to a sabbatical with 
the requirement to return to the University for at least a year. 
Persons who served less than six years had no a priori right to 
leave. The Board, however, could grant leave on an individual 
basis and set whatever terms and conditions it wished to impose. 
Trustee Marks said that as a conceptual framework was developed 
to cover all aspects of the matter of equity for former adminis- 
trators, existing precedents should be treated with caution. He 
suggested that the Trustees take a fresh view of this matter and 
not worry about precedents. Trustee Crain said that in some in- 
dustries it was the practice, when a person was moving to a lower 
paying position, to reduce the salary in a series of multiple 
steps over a reasonable period of time. This was an alternative 
the Trustees could consider. 

Chairman Troy asked if it would be possible for the 
staff to work up a very careful and systematic study and present 
it to a future joint meeting of the Committees. This would pro- 
vide a firm basis for the Trustees to work on. Mr. Lynton said 
such a study would be prepared for a meeting in March. It was his 
understanding that the study would include an analysis of practices 
with regard to compensation, as well as a recommendation; an 
analysis and recommendations as regards named professorships; and 
an analysis and recommendations as regards the question of leave. 
The Trustees agreed. Trustee Burack asked that the study also 
consider and make recommendations on the use of a proportion of 
the Commonwealth Professorships to bring scholars to the Univer- 
sity for a stated period of time. 

In response to a question, Trustee Crain said that it 
was his understanding that the purpose of the meeting being held 



-4- 



I 



» 



1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

was to begin developing a methodical and logical approach to the 
general questions concerning former administrators. Questions 
concerning specific individuals would be dealt with no later 
than April. 



This completed the business of the joint meeting 
time was 11:25 a.m. 



The 



| 



1 



Chairman Crain then called the meeting of the Committee 
on Budget and Finance to order. President Patterson introduced 
Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Mangement . The meeting then 
turned to the agenda item, Amendment to University Travel Rules 
and Regulations (Doc. T78-053) . Chairman Crain said this was a 
rather mundane item which staff had suggested be routinized so 
that the Board would not have to act every time the Legislature 
altered the travel reimbursement rates . 

There was no further discussion and it was moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees establish 
the policy that that the travel reimbursement rate 
for the use of personal cars by all University 
employees shall be the same as those set from 
time to time by the Commonwealth for all state 
employees . 

The meeting then discussed the agenda item, FY 1979 
Budget Request Revision (Doc. T78-052) . Mr. Kaludis said the 
proposed revision would bring the FY79 request into line with 
the labor settlements that had been reached or were expected to 
be reached with other state employees. The request included 
monies for faculty in anticipation of a settlement. The revision 
totalled just over $2,800,000. He noted that the revision had 
nothing to do with the problems the University would face in 
FY78. Also, it would be necessary to act quickly. In response 
to Mr. Schulman's questions, Ms. Hanson said the proposed re- 
vision did not provide for any additional positions. There was 
no further discussion, and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the amendment to the FY 1979 Maintenance Budget 
Request as set forth in Doc. T78-052. 

Mr. Kaludis said the Trustees should know that President 
(Patterson had set in motion a very complete study of the residence 
lhall financing issue. It was hoped that the study would be com- 
jpletodsoon. The study would include material on the relationship 
of the University with the University of Massachusetts Building 
Authority and what restrictions exist which prevent the system 
from being more flexible. Also, ways in which to capture funds 



-5- 



B&F Comm. 
F&EP Comm. 
1/25/78 



Amendment to 
University 
Travel Rules 
and Regulations 
(Doc. T78-053) 



Budget Request 
Revision FY79 
(Doc. T78-052) 



J 



B&F Comm. 
F&EP Comm. 
1/25/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to finance residence hall renovations would be studied. Trusted 
Troy said that as a member of the Building Authority he had long 
felt there should be a stronger liaison. President Patterson said 
he had asked Mr. Kaludis to be in touch with all Trustees in- 
terested in the residence hall matter. 

Chairman Crain said he had been exploring the matter of 
Trustee liability particularly as it applied to the Building 
Authority. Trustee Burack said it was her understanding that the 
Trustees were protected by a state law which indemnified them 
against liability. 

President Patterson said that in addition to the group chaired 
by Mr. Kaludis to study residence hall financing, he had asked Mr 
Woodbury to chair a somewhat larger, joint Amherst/Central Ad- 
ministration group to study the planning necessary and possible 
capital outlay requests for residence hall renovation. Also, in 
discussing this matter with Senator John Olver it appeared that 
such a capital outlay request would receive a sympathetic hearing 
Chairman Crain said he was aware of the legally imposed complexi- 
ties in these matters; however, rather than trying to find ways 
to circumvent these complexities , the Trustees would be well ad- 
vised to seek legislative relief. 

Mr. Beatty said the Trustees might wish to know that smoke 
detectors were now being installed in each room in the residence 
halls . 



There was no further business to come before the Committee, 
and the meeting adjourned at 11:45. 




John Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary 



I 



■ 



' 



-6- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 



January 31, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston. Massachusetts 



ATTENDANCE: iCommittee and Committee Staff: Chairman Spiller; President Pat- 



terson; Trustees Burack and Kassler; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, 
recorder 

Committee Members Absent: Trustees McNulty, Romer and Winthrop 



■Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Mr. Brigham, 
Senior University Planner; Mr. Cooley, Associate Vice President 
for Analytical Studies; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director; Mr. Meehan, 
Consultant to the Planning Office 

UM/Amherst: Mr. Littlefield, Director of Planning; Mr. Simpson, 



Renovation 
Plans for 
100 Arling- 
ton Street 
(Doc. T78-048) 



Staff Assistant 

UM/ Bos ton : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Mr. Prince, Director, Physical 
Plant; Mr. Tifney, Director, Nantucket Field Station 

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. The first 
item discussed was Renovation Plans for 100 Arlington Street 
(Doc. T78-048) . Mr. Meehan said that the revised plans now be- 
fore the Committee in effect satisfied 95 percent of the requests 
of the staffs of the College of Public and Community Services and 
the President's Office. He noted that demolition had already 
begun on the four floors to be renovated. While this work was 
;somewhat behind schedule, this was not expected to affect the 
deadline for the completion of the renovation. 

After a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve pre- 
liminary plans for the renovation of 100 Arlington 
Street as described in Doc. T78-048, and to auth- 
orize the President to approve final working drawings 
and specifications. 

The Committee then discussed Application for Acquisition 
of Surplus Federal Property on Nantucket Island (Doc. T78-051) . 
Mr. Brigham said that the University had known for some time that I sition of 
the government was considering declaring the property in question ' Surplus Fed- 
to be surplus. The declaration had finally been issued and now eral Proper- 
the University would have to move quickly, as other institutions ty on Nantuc- 
ket Island 
(Doc. T78-051) 



Application 
I for Acqui- 



i 



B & G 
1/31/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

were interested in the land. Mr. Brigham said that approval of 
the proposed vote would indicate the serious intent of the Univer- 
sity but would in no way commit the University to accept the 
property without further Board action. 

Mr. Tifney said the University's Nantucket Field 
Station had been in use since 1969. Courses were offered through 
UM/Boston and the programs were used by students from the Boston 
and Amherst campuses, by students from other Boston-area univer- 
sities and by Nantucket residents. In addition, there were on- 
going research activities investigating the island's unusually 
diverse environment. 



The scope of the 
been restriced because of 
residential accommodations 
Housing on the island was 
expensive during the summe 
sites. On one there were 
apartments, both buildings 
years old. The other site 
because of its unusual eco 



se programs, Mr. Tifney continued, had 
the difficulty in finding suitable 

for both students and faculty, 
limited at all times and prohibitively 
r. The University was considering two 
two builidngs containing 14 two-bedroom 
in excellent repair and less than ten 
was of interest to the Field Station 
logical characteristics. 



Trustee Burack asked if the buildings would have to be 
renovated. Mr. Baxter said no renovations were necessary. Some 
furniture would have to be purchased. The only other thing 
necessary would be to hook up the appliances which were already 
in the buildings. In response to Trustee Kassler's question, Mr, 
Baxter said that the cost of operating the site would be about 
$20,000 per year; this included the salary of one full time 
person at the site. The net cost to the Univerisity would be 
about $9,000 per year because there would be income from rentals 

During the ensuing discussion it was agreed that the 
Committee would recommend that the Board approve the application 
with the understanding that if it were successful, other commit- 
tees, such as Faculty and Educational Policy and Budget and 
Finance, would discuss the matter before the University accepted 
the property. 

It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
submission of an application to the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare for the acquisition 
of surplus federal property on Nantucket Island 
as described in Doc. T78-051 and to authorize the 
President to act on behalf of the University as 
provided in the formal resolution accompanying the 
application. 

Columbia The Committee then discussed Columbia Station Bus 

Station ■Terminal: Land Acquisition and Related Improvements . Mr. Prince 
Bus Termi- 
nal 

-2- 



I 



P 



> 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



B & G 
1/31/78 



said that the bus terminal was on land leased from the Gulf Oil 
Company. The lease was expiring and there was general agreement 
that it would be in the interest of the University to purchase the 
land. The FY 1978 budget included an appropriation of $300,000 
capital outlay for this purpose. The University was now negotiating 
with Gulf on purchasing the land and the UM/Boston Planning Office 
was now developing plans for needed site improvements. Chairman 
Spiller noted that no Committee action was necessary on this item. 

The Committee then discussed Campus Road and Parking 
Lot Improvements— UM /Amherst (Doc. T78-049) . Mr. Littlefield saidj 



Campus Road 
and Parking 
Lot Improve- 
ments — UM/ 
Amherst 
(Doc. T78-049) 



the Amherst campus had a long term program to improve the campus 
road system and the parking lots. The estimated cost of this was 
in the range of $2,500,000. The Legislature had appropriated 
$1,020,000. Work was now underway to make the following improve- 
ments. 

— The widening of Infirmary Road, Commonwealth Avenue 
and a portion of Massachusetts Avenue. The widening of Massa- 
chusetts Avenue would entail the rebuilding of the pedestrian 
tunnel. This rebuilding had been requested by the campus safety 
committee. 

— The resurfacing of parking lot #40. 

— Relining and widening of the Governor's Drive and the 
placing of a permanent sidewalk alongside the drive. 

— The reduction in size of the parking lot #65 and the 
resurfacing of same. 

— Modifications to South College/Hicks Road and Eastman 
Lane which would increase pedestrian safety. 

Mr. Littlefield noted that all of the improvements would 
include the necessary modifications to meet the requirements of 
the handicapped. 

After a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
preliminary plans for Campus Road and Parking Lot 
Improvements at the Amherst Campus as described 
in Doc. T78-049 and to authorize the Chancellor, 
in consultation with the President, to complete the 
improvements in accordance with these plans as 
approved. 

The Committee then discussed Goodell Building Renova- 
! tion — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-050) . Mr. Littlefield said that Goodell ing Renova- 



would be the first of the older buildings to be renovated. An 
appropriation of $2,500,000 had been received and this was consid- 
ered adequate to renovate part of the building. The concept of 
"interior landscaping" would be used in the renovation. That is, 
office space would be semi-enclosed and there would be few fixed 
walls. 

-3- 



Goodell Build- 



tion — UM/Am- 
herst 
(Doc. T78-050) 



d 



B & G 
1/31/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Simpson said that the building had been built as a 
library in 1936 and that a wing had been added in 1960. While 
the building had served well as a library, renovating it as an 
office building presented several problems. For example, there 
Were large interior spaces and the ceilings varied from more 
than 26 feet to less than 7 feet. The renovated building would 
mainly be used to house Student Services. 

After a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve pre- 
liminary plans for the renovation of the Goodell 
Building as described in Doc. T78-050. 

Chairman Spiller then asked about the status of the 
funding for the Clark Physical Education Center. Ms. Robinson 
said that the bids for construction of the building had been 
greatly in excess of the appropriation. This was because of 
some seven years of inflation. University counsel was now in 
the process of seeking a remedy through discussion with represen- 
tatives from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Commitee and the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 



/&+<~+£2 r - 



Dorothy Eichel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



II 



I 



UNiVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

February 1, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Memorial Hall 
University of Massachusetts/Amherst 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey ; President 



Patterson; Trustees Crain, Robertson, Shearer and Troy; Assistant 
Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent: Trustee Spiller 



Other Trustees: Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer, Burack, Kassler, 



Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty; Mr. Callahan representing 
Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for 
Management 

UM/ Amherst : Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 



Guest: Mrs. Pinck, Assistant Secretary of Educational Affairs 



The meeting came to order at 11:15 a.m. Chairman 
Healey said the Committee would immediately move into executive 
session in order to discuss collective bargaining agreements and 
personnel matters. Without discussion it was moved and seconded 
and on role call, unanimously 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

At 1:15 p.m. it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 

There was no further business to come before the 
committee, and the meeting adjourned at 1:16 p.m. 



Executive 
Session 




Dorothy Ei^zhel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
University 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



\ 



I 



. ■ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON AUDITS 



February 3, 1978; 8:30 a.m. 

12th Floor Conference Room 

Office of the President 

1 Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Dennis; Trustee Crain; 
Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Fielding 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hanson, Budget Director and Associate Vice President; 
Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business Services; Mr. 
Hogan, Controller 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budget and Institu- 
tional Studies 

UM/ Bo st on : Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance 



UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance 

The meeting came to order at 8:35 a.m. Chairman Dennis 
called for discussion of the agenda item Director of Auditing . 
Mr. Kaludis said that the position would be advertised in the 
J near future. February 28 was the deadline for receiving appli- 
' cations and the target date for bringing the names of recommended 
J candidates to the committee was May 1. While it had been decided 
that the Director of Auditing would report to the Vice President 
for Management, the location of the Director's office had yet to 
be decided. Mr. Kaludis concluded by noting that arguments could 
be made for locating the office at any of the three campuses or 
in the Central Administration Office. 

In the ensuing discussion each of the four locations was 
discussed in detail. This led to a general agreement that the 
office should be located at Worcester because of a number of 
factors — the auditors would, from time to time, have to visit 
each of the campuses and the central administration, and a cen- 
trally located office would minimize travel time; while the audit- 
ing requirements at the other three locations would grow, those 
at Worcester would, in time, be the largest; there was an adequate 
pool of people with the needed expertise in the Worcester area; 
lastly, there was no perceived hazard in having the auditing 



Director of 
Auditing 



Audits 
2/3/78 



Independent 
Audit of 
University 
Hospital for 
FY78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

department geographically separate from the central administra- 
tion and this would be in line with the need and intent to build 
a University-wide system. 

Chairman Dennis summarized the discussion of the meeting 
and those of earlier meetings by noting that the Committee had 
agreed that the salary of the Director of Auditing would be some- 
where in range of the $30,000 plus; and that the Director would 
report to the Vice President for Management and would be based 
at the Medical Center. Trustee Crain urged the Committee not 
to assume that the position could only be filled by someone re- 
quiring the top salary. A person with a potential for growth 
might well be the most desirable candidate. He also noted the 
need to consider affirmative action in the search process. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item Independent 
Audit of University Hospital for FY78 . Chairman Dennis noted 
that the proposal for the audit recommended that the Medical 
Center solicit bids only from the "big eight" auditing firms. 
Smaller firms, he said, including minority firms, frequently 
offered capabilities equivalent to the bigger firms. At the very 
least, he suggested, in the initial talks with the big firms the 
possibility of their subcontracting some of the work to minority 
firms should be discussed. Trustee Crain said his experience 
had shown that smaller firms could procedue as well as the big 
ones and at less cost. If the University had to deal with a 
"big eight" firm, he said, the firm should be told to make a 
genuine effort to subcontract some of the work to minority firms, 
if for no other reason than to satisfy the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission that the University had made an effort. 
Mr. Campbell said efforts would be made to solicit as many firms 
as possible and to address the need for affirmative action. He 
said the Trustees should be aware that the firm chosen to do the 
audit would have to have expertise in a health care environment. 

Mr. Hester asked why the Group Practice was included as 
part of the University Hospital audit. He said the inclusion 
might cause some members of the Group Practice to perceive 
a divided loyalty on the part of the auditor. Mr. Campbell 
said that there was a great deal of interchange between the 
Hospital and the Group Practice; for example, it was very common 
to have bill from each paid by a single check. Having separ- 
ate audits would result in two groups plowing the same field. 
Trustee Crain reminded the meeting that the Group Practice was 
part of the University and that the Trustees were liable for 
the Group's actions. In this regard he had what might be a 
unique problem — he had to convince the Legal Counsel of his 
firm that the University was not engaged in actionable practices. 
Also, an audit was a management tool intended to discover what 
problems were in the system and how to solve them. It was not 

-2- 



r 



i 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



intended to trap people. 

Mr. Kaludis said that if there were problems with mem- 
j bers of the Group Practice concerning the audit, they would have 
| to understand that this was a policy decision of the Board which 
would have to be followed. He noted that one function of an 
audit was to discover if the operative rules were valid. 

Chairman Dennis said this matter would have to be 
dealt with when and if it arose. He said that another aspect 
of the matter was that, in lumping different audits together, 
one always wound up hiring one of the "big-eight" firms. 
Experience had shown that hiring two firms often meant getting 
the best of both. Mr. Campbell said consideration could be 
given to asking auditors to bid on either auditing the Hospital, 
the Group Practice, or auditing both. The Committee then 
authorized the preparation and distribution of requests for pro- 
posals for the Hospital audit with the qualifying comments made 
in the discussion. Mr. Kaludis was to coordinate with 
Mr. Campbell the specification and bidding process. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item Peat , 
Marwick, and Mitchell FY76 Audits of UM/Amherst Auxiliaries . 
Chairman Dennis said the Committee had agreed that all such 
audits and the campus responses to the audits should be examined, 
Mr. Beatty said that a list of all audits since 1973 and the 
campuses' responses thereto had been compiled in his office. 
As well, first drafts of FY77 audits of the Campus Center, the 
Residence Halls and the Health Services had been received on 
January 31. There then ensued a discussion of the extended 
period of time between receipt of the first draft of an audit 
and receipt of the completed audit. 

The lapse of time between the first draft and the 
completed audit at the University was much greater than that 
common in industry. It was suggested that pressure be brought 
to bear on the auditors. Also discussed was the impact of the 
Fair Information Practices Act on the operations of the Univer- 
sity and the Committee. Chairman Dennis asked that clarifica- 
tions of this matter be sought from University Counsel. 

The meeting then returned to the matter of the 
Committee's examination of audits. Chairman Dennis said that 
since there were a number of audits to be dealt with, it would 
be advisable to adopt a systematic approach to the problem. 
He suggested that the staff recommend a procedure and a schedule. 
What was needed was an overall plan and an indication of which 
of the audits were most critical. Mr. Kaludis said this would 
be done. His immediate reaction would be to suggest that the 
the Committee begin with the Residence Halls audits because the 
University was on notice that certain actions in the past were 



Audits 
2/3/78 



-3- 



Peat, Marwick, 
and Mitchell 
FY76 Audits of 
UM/Amherst 
Auxiliaries 



Audits 
2/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

subject to question. Trustee Crain said he would like to see 
any audits and any documents regarding residence hall audits of 
either the University or the University Building Authority. In 
the case of all audits, he said, he would like to see them come 
in a regular stream, with indication by staff of the salient 
points in each audit, and with the material to be in the hands of 
the Trustees at least a week prior to the meeting at which they 
would be discussed. Chairman Dennis seconded these suggestions. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee, and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. 

Dorothy E^hel 
Assistant Secretary of the 
University 



■4- 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 

February 28, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



J Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain; President 
Patterson; Trustees Dennis, Krumsiek and Marks; Mr. Barrus rep- 
resenting Trustee Winthrop ; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Breyer 

Other Trustees : Trustee Batiste; Ms. Pinck representing Trustee 
Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Hanson 
Budget Director and Associate Vice President; Mr. Hester, Associ- 
ate Vice President for Business Services 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budgeting and 
Institutional Studies 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Mr. Bice, Hospital Director 

The meeting came to order at 3:24 p.m. Chairman Crain 
called for discussion on the agenda item Mid-Year Budget Review . 
President Patterson said the Chancellors and their staffs had 
prepared very thorough reviews of the present budget position. 
The reviews would be very helpful when the administration ap- 
peared before the House Ways and Means Committee on March 21 to 
discuss the FY1979 budget request. 

Chancellor Bromery said it might be useful to start 
with the bottom line — the proposed mid-year transfers. These 
were in large part caused by greatly increased snow removal costs 
Also, the recent storms had caused structural damage which would 
have to be repaired. This brought to mind a problem that would 
have to be dealt with in the near future — deferred maintenance 
on the Amherst campus. 



Mid-Year 
Budget Review 



UM/Amherst — 

Mid-Year 

Review 



B & F 
2/28/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The intent of the proposed transfers, Chancellor Bromery 
continued, was to fulfill the academic priorities established 
for FY1978. Efforts to reduce class sizes were continuing, as 
were efforts to eliminate the backlog in the Rhetoric Program. 
(Completion of the program was a requirement for graduation for 
an increasing portion of the students.) Also, some funds were 
being shifted to Continuing Education. The remainder would be 
transferred to academic and institutional support services. 

In response to Trustee Marks' question about library 
support, Mr. Beatty said that this was one of the campus's unmet 
priorities. However, this year all of the land grant funds, some 
$220,000 would be devoted to the library. Efforts would be made 
to find additional funds for this purpose. 

Chancellor Bromery noted that until two years ago library 
acquisitions had been a line item in the budget approved by the 
Legislature. Some five years ago, the University had also re- 
ceived a multi-year capital outlay for the library. Since then 
the Legislature had eliminated the item, and funds for the 
library had to be taken from the operating budget. For FY1979, 
Secretary Parks had recommended $900,000 for the libraries of 
the three campuses. The library at Amherst was beset as well by 
increases in the cost of books and increases in the number of 
books vandalized. 

Trustee Batiste asked for clarification of the improve- 
ments in financial aid services. Mr. Woodbury said that the 
improvements had been achieved by adding staff. Funds for the 
additional staff had been taken from both state and federal 
monies. Further improvements were necessary. Chancellor Bromery 
said that the timing of informing admitted applicants about their 
financial aid status was critical. This information was now 
reaching the students at about the same time as the notification 
of admission. He concluded by noting that the federal government 
had mandated an audit of the financial aid operation. 

Trustee Marks asked how the $77,000 for the Fine Arts 
Center was to be allocated. Mr. Allen said a large portion would 
be devoted to summer programs. A Leonard Bernstein festival was 
to be offered. Salaries for the festival would amount to 
$66,000. The total expenditure for all summer programs was 
$192,000; projected revenues were $102,000. Trustee Marks asked 
if it would be possible to receive a detailed description of the 
plans and the financial implications of the summer program and 
of plans for any remaining funds. Chancellor Bromery said this 
would be provided. 

Chairman Crain asked if there were any plans to shift 
staff from 02 temporary positions to 01 permanent positions. 
Mr. Beatty said there were no 02 positions at the Amherst campus, 
while there were several positions paid through 02 funds, these 

-2- 



i 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

were Common Services. Mr. Kaludis said that in the future the 
question of restoring 01 positions to the Common Services area 
would probably have to be addressed. He said he did not see 
that this had any bearing on the FY 1978 budget. Chairman Crain 
asked if there were benefit implications involved. Ms. Hanson 
said the difference was that one could not have a multiyear con- 
tract while in an 02 position. Mr. Kaludis said this could rais$ 
a morale issue, not a substantive budgetary one. He restated 
that this matter probably should be examined in the future. 

In response to Trustee Batiste's question, Mr. Beatty 
said the campus had been able to reduce class size and increase 
class offerings by filling over 100 vacancies. 

Chairman Crain then called for discussion of the 
Boston campus mid-year review. Chancellor Van Ummersen said the 
campus budget had been affected by costs of snow removal. Be- 
cause of uncertainty as to when the emergency would be declared 
ended, staff had worked overtime to clear the campus. This 
meant funds would have to be transferred into the 02 account. 
Another transfer from the 01 to the 03 account was necessary, 
as a faculty member had reached retirement age. 

The increase in the federal minimum wage had affected 
the cleaning and service contract, Chancellor Van Ummersen con- 
tinued. Also proposed were transfers into the printing and 
publications account. At the end of the fiscal year it was hopec 
that there would be funds left in the 13 account, Special Sup- 
plies, which would be used to purchase library books. Mr. Baxtei 
said the amount available would be governed in large measure 
by the operation or non-operation of Boston Edison's nuclear 
power plant. When the plant was not running, electricity cost 
the Boston campus over $9,000 per week in additional fuel costs. 

Trustee Marks asked for elaboration on the statement 
in the mid-year review about additional resources for the 
Extended Day Program. Chancellor Van Ummersen said that at this 
time only students majoring in Management could earn a degree in 
the evening. In the fall of 1978 a similar program will be 
offered in Economics. Others were being considered. 

Chairman Crain asked for clarification of the $170,000 
in increased allocations for the College of Arts and Sciences. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said $45,000 was returned to the CAS ear- 
marked for the arts: the Arts Department received funds for 
about 1-1/3 faculty positions, a dark room technician, laboratory 
and studio space at the Downtown Center; the Music Department 
was given funds to establish a University /Community orchestra; 
and Theatre Arts was given funds for an Artist-in-Residence and 
several part-time faculty. Funds were provided to the History 



-3- 



B & F 
2/28/78 



UM/Boston- 

Mid-Year 

Review 



B & F 
2/28/78 



UM/Worcester- 
Mid-Year 
Rev iew 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Department to hire a Kennedy Scholar. In addition to teaching, 
the present incumbent was consulting with the administration 
of the Kennedy Library to work out the relationships between the 
Library and the University, and was developing funding proposals 
to submit to the National Endowment for the Humanities. 

Other funds were needed to offer additional sections 
in the Extended Day Program. Also, replacements were needed for 
Professor Marshall, who had been loaned to the Presidential 
Search Committee, and Professor Kramer, who was working on a 
special project. Finally, administrative responsibility for 
three programs — the ACTION, Year in France, and Teacher Certifi- 
cation Programs — had been transferred to the College of Arts 
and Sciences. Chairman Crain thanked the Chancellor and noted 
that the Boston Mid-Year Review made reference to many stimu- 
lating programs and encouraging changes in the CAS. 

Chairman Crain then said that he did not wish to have 
a prolonged discussion at present on a matter that had caught 
his attention — the escalation of advertising costs throughout 
the University. He suggested that the Central Administration 
coordinate an analysis of the advertising budget and the effec- 
tiveness of advertising for position vacancies. After a brief 
discussion, it was agreed that such an analysis would be pre- 
sented to the Committee. 

Chairman Crain then called for discussion of the 
Medical Center Mid-Year Review. Chancellor Bulger said he would 
first discuss the Medical School. Several years ago the Legis- 
lature, in the final version of the Medical School budget, had 
inserted a line item of $750,000 for family practice residencies 
This was, in a sense, counter to a growing trend of having 
residents' stipends budgeted by the hospital where they receive 
postgraduate training. The request to transfer the residents' 
salaries to the hospital would be extended to a FY 1979 budget 
request reduction for the Medical School. 



The student population at the Medical School, the 
Chancellor continued, had continued to grow at the planned rate, 
However, the faculty, because of budgetary restrictions, was 
not at its planned size of 200. The School began the year with 
121 state funded FTE faculty. It had been decided to use all 
available uncommitted or transferable funds to alleviate this 
situation. One result of this was that there had been no funds 
for the purchase of books and little money for the purchase of 
journals. The current status of the library could be appreciated 
by comparing it with the library at the Univeristy of Connecticut 
Medical School. U Conn, not an outstanding library, had 3,200 
subscriptions; U Mass had 1,600, a minimal figure. In order to 
partially correct this situation and in order to purchase other 
needed teaching equipment, transfers to the 13 account were 
recommended. 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain asked for elaboration on the proposed trans- 
fers to the 02 account for support personnel. Chancellor Bulger 
said the problem went back several years and that during the hir- 
ing freeze, state funds could only be used to hire people who 
contributed to patient care. Other funds had to be used to hire 
secretarial and other support personnel for those engaged in pa- 
tient care. The chief sources of the other funds were the federal 
capitation grants, whereunder the School received a grant for each 
student. These grants would almost certainly cease at the end of; 
the fiscal year; thus support staff would now have to be paid from 
state funds. Worcester did not apporach the accepted standard 
for faculty support; there were some clinical departments with 
no secretaries and in the basic sciences there were as many as 
ten to eleven faculty per secretary. Clinical faculty, he noted 
were going in four directions at once — they were expected to 
teach, to be in the operating room, to lecture and to attend 
patients. Mr. Campbell said it should be noted that the transfer 
of these positions to 02 funds did not mean the hiring of new 
personnel. 

Chairman Crain said that one of the things that caused 
comment was the neither the number of beds in the Hospital nor 
staffing were at the level implied in the budget. Chancellor 
Bulger said that for a variety of reasons the number of faculty 
was not at its planned level of 200. However, the situation now 
was better than it had been a year ago, when there was concern 
that the faculty might not be large enough or sufficiently di- 
versified to open a general hospital. At present, there were 75 
full-time clinicians in almost as many specialities; 21 of these 
were in community medicine and seldom worked in the Hospital, 
thus reducing the number of clinicians in the Hospital. While 
the situation had improved, further staff were needed. Chairman 
Crain said that one of the things that struck him was that the 
Medical Center seemed to be running behind in numbers of clinical 
faculty while running ahead in terms of administrative support. 
He felt this should be reviewed when constructing the next year's 
budget. Chancellor Bulger said that in terms of administrators 
the Medical Center was now in good shape. 

The meeting then discussed the Mid-Year Budget Review of 
the Teaching Hospital. Chancellor Bulger said that in at least 
one area there had been a turn around in the Hospital. A year 
ago, the Hospital administration had tried to convince the then 
Chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee that the budget 
made sense and that the Hospital, at the very least, would be 
able to collect its accounts receivable. Evidence of the turna- 
round was that in July, 1977, the Hospital collected $100,000 in 
accounts receivable, which in the absence of the Hospital Trust 
Fund, was forwarded to the State Treasurer. In January, 1977, 
before the Trust Fund was in operation, some $400,000 was col- 
lected; in January, 1978, the amount was $1,400,000. This and 



-5- 



B & F 
2/28/78 



B & F 
2/28/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

other evidence led to the conclusion that the financial operation 
at the Hospital had improved significantly. 

Mr. Bice said that February, 197 8, marked the end of the 
sixth month of the trust fund operation. A base of data was now 
being built up and it would soon be possible to make long-term 
as well as day-to-day projections of outgo and income. In con- 
junction with the Central Administration staff, guidelines for 
the management of the Hospital were being developed. These 
would be designed to protect not only the interests of the 
Hospital but those of the University as a whole. 

The main transfers out recommended in the mid-year re- 
view, Mr. Bice continued, included the areas of salaries and 
laboratory and medical supplies. The original estimate for 
these accounts had been based on 175 open beds; it was now pro- 
jected that only 161 beds would be open at the end of FY1978; 
thus there were funds available for transfer. He said the Com- 
mittee should know that there was $434,000 in the 01 account to 
pay for legislatively mandated salary and wage increases. Anothe 
area from which money could be transferred was the rental account 
$95,000 was available, chiefly because the Hospital had not 
needed as much rental funds for Common Services as had been pro- 
jected. 

Areas where increases were recommended included $466,000 
for the 03 account; this was tied in with the transfer of cer- 
tain residency costs from the Medical School budget. The 02 
account was going up to $36,000, this was partly because the 
Hospital did not get permanent positions released from the 
Legislature for one half of the year, and the Hospital had to 
go to the President to get 291 positions necessary to open 36 
beds early in the FY1978. Also included were additional posi- 
tions which the legislature had eliminated and additional nursing 
positions in the intensive care units. 

The advertising account, Mr. Bice continued, was going 
up to $75,000. He said he shared the concerns already expressed 
about this amount and would join in a study to see what could 
be done about this. The educational supplies account was up 
$50,000 for new programs and a $20,000 grant to the library. 
In the 15 account (equipment) the amount of increases was 
$250,000. In regard to this, he said it was important to note 
that the Hospital was beginning to generate an equipment reserve 
fund. As was known, much of the income came from third party 
payers, who reimbursed the Hospital for purchases of equipment 
over a period of time. It was anticipated that when fully 
operational the Hospital would be only partially dependent on 
capital outlay for equipment purchases. Chancellor Bulger said 
that the original plan for the Hospital had included provision 
for capital outlays, when necessary, to open the facility seg- 
ment by segment. A permanent capital outlay arrangement had 
never been intended. 

-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Dennis asked if there was a plan and a stated 
dollar amount for equipping the Hospital. Ms. Hanson said that 
such a plan had been devised prior to the opening of the Hospital 
There was, in fact, an accepted formula which relates cost of 
construction and cost of initial equipment. When original equip- 
ment needed replacement, the cost of such replacement would 
normally be borne by the Hospital Trust Fund. Mr. Kaludis noted 
that one of the previously mentioned guidelines for the Trust 
Fund would deal with the amount of the equipment purchase 
reserve. 

Trustee Krumsiek asked if any of the purchases recom- 
mended in the mid-year review were subject to the certificate of 
need process. Mr. Bice said all were under the $150,000 certifi- 
cate of need level. Trustee Krumsiek suggested that it would 
be helpful if the Committee could be informed of any additional 
personnel costs when being asked to approve equipment purchases. 
Mr. Bice said he was not aware of any additional personnel costs 
which would stem from the equipment purchases being recommended. 

Trustee Dennis said that whenever he saw transfers 
from the 01 to the 02 account he always had two questions — were 
the positions approved by the Legislature and would the same 
transfers recur in the next fiscal year. The answer to both 
questions was in the affirmative. Trustee Dennis said this 
seemed to be a subversion of the budgeting process. Mr. Kaludis 
said the University had no choice in this matter. The Hospital 
had to grow according to plan in an orderly fashion. This meant 
that the transfers would recur. Otherwise, Hospital growth 
would be tied to the appropriation cycle. He said efforts were 
being made to regularize the process. Trustee Dennis said he 
would once again have to express his concern. He was surprised 
that someone in the Legislature had not brought this problem to 
light. Ms. Hanson said that the Legislature was at fault in 
this regard. The Legislature regularly withheld the approved 
list of new permanent positions requested by the University and 
other state agencies until well after the budget had been ap- 
proved. Ms. Hanson concluded by noting that this matter would 
be discussed with the legislators in the course of the FY 1979 
budget hearings. Mr. Kaludis said the process as it now operated 
was not poor management but was an attempt to operate under very 
peculiar ground rules. 

Chairman Crain asked if it would be possible, when 
meeting with the legislators, to discuss the situation caused by 
not being able to offer competitive wages to nurses, as the prob- 
lems caused by turnovers in the nursing staff were very serious. 
Mr. Bice said efforts had been made to solve this. Of particular 
concern was the situation of the intensive care beds; whereas 
the average community hospital devoted about 5 percent of its 
beds to intensive care, the target figure at the Teaching 
Hosptial was 15 percent. Intensive care units required greater 



-7- 



B & F 
2/28/78 



B & F 
2/28/78 



President ' s 

Office, 

Common 

Services 

and IGS 

Mid-Year 

Reviews 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

skills from the nurses and placed greater demands on their time. 
At present, the salaries offered were not competitive. Efforts 
were underway to solve this problem. 

Chairman Crain asked if the income projections for 
Arpil to June were solid. He said he would prefer not to be 
surprised at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Bice assured him 
that if there were any surprises, they would be pleasant ones. 
President Patterson said he had noted the favorable administra- 
tive developments at Worcester and expressed his pleasure at 
having Mr. Bice on board. He had proven himself to be tremen- 
dously effective. 

The meeting then discussed the mid-year budget reviews 
of the President's Office, Common Services and the Institute for 

Governmental Services. President Patterson said the President's 
Office had been living as parsimoniously as possible. He said 
that when he arrived he did not realize how parsimonious that 
might be. 

Given the modest transfers proposed, he continued, 
the office would make it through the end of the fiscal year. 
While the planning office as such would no longer exist under a 
reorganization to take place on March 1, planning functions 
would continue under the aegis of the Vice President for 
Academic Affairs and the Vice President for Management. He said 
it should be noted that the office would be short in terms of 
certain personnel capabilities needed to deal with certain 
essential tasks. This matter would be brought to the Trustees' 
attention in due course. 

President Patterson concluded by noting that Ms. 
Hanson was available to discuss any questions concerning the 
mid-year review of the Institute for Governmental Services, 
as was Mr. Hester to discuss the Common Services review. 

Ms. Hanson said that the transfers being recommended 
would reduce the funds for repair of equipment and paper 
products and would increase those available for photoduplication 
renovation of 100 Arlington Street and travel to the campuses. 

Trustee Dennis asked if the plan to use the money 
freed by not filling staff positions to pay the rent at One 
Washington Mall was working out. Ms. Hanson said this was 
one of the reasons why the budget was so tight and was a matter 
of concern to the President. President Patterson said the 
central staff was shorthanded in areas where there were very 
real needs. He said the need to divert money for personnel 
to pay rent made him very unhappy and was done at substantial 
cost to the effectiveness of the central administration. 
Mr. Kaludis said that the practice of funding the central office 



I 



I 



•8- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



at a level just sufficient to keep in operation should be looked 
at. If this practice continued, whoever was the president would 
have to make very difficult decisions as the fiscal year pro- 
gressed. He urged that this practice be changed. 

The meeting then discussed the mid-year review of the 
Institute for Governmental Services, particularly the matter of 
the Title XX agreement. Chairman Crain said he was disturbed 
by the final sentence of the I.G.S. report which spoke of the 
deleterious effect of the Title XX agreement on other activities 
of the Institute. Trustees Dennis and Marks shared this dis- 
quiet. After a brief discussion it was agreed that a study 
would be prepared and that the matter would be discussed in 
detail at the March 22 meeting. 

The meeting then discussed the mid-year review of 
Common Services. Mr. Hester said that after an exhaustive, 
year-long search, John Lydon had been hired as the Director 
of Data Processing. Mr. Lydon had been employed by the Winby 
Wright Corporation, where he headed a data processing operation 
that included a national teleprocessing system, and he had 
experience with data bases. He would bring to the University 
a solid professional background and a deep understanding of 
what was needed to bring the operation into a new era of 
sophistication in data processing. 

There was no further discussion and Chairman Crain 
called for a motion on the proposed vote. At Trustee Marks' 
request it was agreed that the question be divided and it was 
further agreed seriatim to recommend that the Board approve 
the fund transfers at Amherst, Boston, the Medical School, the 
Teaching Hospital, the President's Office and the Institute 
for Government Services; and by so doing it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the subsidiary account transfers as detailed 
in Doc. T78-060. 

Chairman Crain said he appreciated the amount of 
work put into the mid-year reviews and the fact that the 
material was delivered in good time. He said he hoped this 
would continue, as meetings went much more quickly when the 
Trustees and others had time to do their homework. 

Chairman Crain then said the Committee would go 
into executive session in order to discuss a personnel matter. 
The Committee would not reconvene in open session. At 5:00 p.m. 
without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



-9- 



B & F 
2/28/78 



Executive 
Session 



3 & F 
2/28/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

Chairman Crain, President Patterson and Trustees Dennis, Marks 
and Krumsiek voted for the motion, as did Mr. Barrus. 
Trustee Breyer was absent. 

At 5:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session and to adjourn the 
meeting. 



I 




*uULJl 



Dorothy Eicwel 
Assistant Secretary of 
the University 



I 



I 



-10- 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 



March 1, 1978; 1:45 p.m. 

Room 308 
Administration Building 
Harbor Campus 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Committee and Committee Staff: Trustees Breyer, Burack; Ms 
Eichel, recorder 



Absent Committee Members : Chairman Troy; Trustees Batiste, 
Dukakis and Morgenthau 

Other Trustees: Trustee Robertson 



Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for 
Academic Affairs 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen 



The meeting was convened by Trustee Burack, in the 
absence of Chairman Troy ? at 1:55 p.m. Trustee Burack said that 
the one item of agenda, Acceptance of Invitation to Join Boston 
Library Consortium — UM/Boston (Doc. T78-057) , was desirable and, 
indeed, an honor for the Boston Campus. Membership in the Con- 
sortium would allow faculty and students, particularly graduate 
students, to have access to the research collections of the 
other member libraries, as well as the library on their own 
campus. Access to these collections would mean that more ef- 
ficient use could be made of funds for library acquisitions 
for undergraduate purposes. Everyone present agreed that member- 
ship in the Consortium would be beneficial to the campus and on 
motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees accept 
the invitation that the Library of the Boston 
Campus become a member of the Boston Library 
Consortium. 

There being no further business, the meeting was 
adjourned at 2:00 p.m. 



■ UM/Boston — 
Acceptance of 
Invitation to 
Join Boston 
Library Con- 
sortium 
(Doc. T78-057) 



Dorothy Eicftel 

Assistant Secretary of the 

University 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



1 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



I 



UN8VERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 

March 15, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Spiller; Trustee 
McNulty; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck rep- 
resenting Trustee Dukakis; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Burack and Romer 

Other Trustees : Trustee Baker 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Littlefield, Director of Planning 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Prince, Director of 
Planning 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance 

Guest : Mr. 0' Sullivan, Student Trustee Elect, UM/Boston 

The meeting was called to order at 11:13 a.m. Chairman 
Spiller said that the agenda item Final Review of Tri-River 
Family Health Center, Uxbridge had been postponed. He then called 
for discussion on Progress Report on Seawater Cooling System — 
UM/Boston. Mr. Prince said that just over 95 percent of the 
working drawings were completed. A slight hitch had developed, 
however. It had been determined that if the proposed routes of 
the lines were followed there would be a probability of settle- 
ment problems; therefore the routes for the new lines had been 
reworked. The present projection was that the project would to 
to bid in April, 1978 and construction would begin in the last 
spring or the early summer. Mr. Prince concluded by noting that 
the currently ongoing investigation of the Bureau of Building 
Construction had rendered the Bureau immobile. 

Mr. Kaludis said it was his understanding that the pro- 
ject was laid out so that there would be no need to shut down 
the campus. Mr. Prince said this was so, and if an unexpected 
need for a shutdown arose, it would done on a weekend. 

Chairman Spiller asked for an update on the legal aspects 
of the old system. Mr. Kaludis said that a lawyer for the 
Attorney General's Office and an engineer selected by that office 



UM/Boston — 
Progress Re- 
port on 
Seawater 
Cooling 
System 



B & G 
3/15/78 



UM/Boston — 
Capital Outlay 
for the Re- 
modeling of 
the Science 
Library, 
Harbor Campus 



Role of the 
University in 
the Design and 
Construction 
of State- 
supported 
Buildings 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

had visited the campus recently. They were reviewing the plans 
and specifications and construction of the system with a view to 
possible action involving the designer and/or contractor. Chair- 
man Spiller said it was very important that the University had 
all of the relevant documentation and that the Trustees' long- 
standing concern in this regard be in the record, and clearly so. 

Mr. Prince said the documentation was available, copies 
had been given to the Attorney General's representatives, and 
that to his knowledge the record was clear. Also, University 
Counsel would soon be in touch with the Attorney General, after 
which a better knowledge of the situation would be available. 

Chairman Spiller said that the file on the system should 
include a memorandum regarding the recent visit by the lawyer 
and the engineer. The memo could be written by the Attorney 
General and/or University Counsel, and should indicate all sub- 
stantive matters discussed. It was agreed that this would be 
done. 

The meeting then discussed Capital Outlay for the Re- 
modeling of the Science Library at the Harbor Campus — UM/Boston . 
Mr. Kaludis said that at a planning meeting with staff from the 
Boston campus one of the issues discussed was the distribution of 
teaching facilities in terms of the size of classrooms. This 
had been a problem almost since the opening of the Harbor Campus. 
At the meeting, staff from Boston had been asked to see if the 
present mix of classroom sizes met the teaching strategy of the 
University. The conclusion was that the present mix was un- 
satisfactory. A capital outlay of $650,000 has been requested 
in order to remodel the Science Library at Boston. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the original academic 
plan for UM/Boston, since abandoned, which envisaged small 
classes in all the colleges, had resulted in the curious situa- 
tion of having many small classrooms and a few large ones, but 
none of medium size. This did impact on the teaching strategy — 
for example, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was 
trying to combine small sections of certain courses such as the 
course in Introductory Anthropology, which was offered in 29 
sections. The lack of medium size classrooms hampered plans 
such as this. At the moment, this was probably the greatest 
need of the campus in terms of teaching space. 

The meeting the discussed the Role of the University 
in the Design and Construction of State-supported Buildings . 
Mr. Kaludis said the material supplied made it fairly evident 
that the Commonwealth had two kinds of problems. One was the 
issue of the appointment of design/construction firms. The 
documentation showed that this was a function of the State. The 
University's role was that of a passive observer. The other is- 
sue was that of construction deficiencies; for example, the just 
discussed Seawater Cooling System. 

-2- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Boston was not the only campus with construction de- 
ficiencies, he continued. At the next Committee meeting the 
Tillson Power Plant would be discussed. A BBC report on the 
situation, as well as a staff report, would be available for that 
meeting. Chairman Spiller said it would be helpful to have a 
memorandum which would indicate, in outline form, what actions 
the University had taken to alert the authorities to the problems 
of Tillson, and which would include the reasons why the plant was 
unacceptable. Mr. Kaludis said this would be done. 

Mr. Kaludis said that while the subject was not on the 
agenda, the campus representatives were prepared to speak on the 
issue of acceptance of buildings. Chairman Spiller said such 
reports would be useful. 

Mr. Littlefield reminded the Trustees that at the 
November 1976 meeting of the Board at Amherst, the Committee had 
toured the campus. Among the issues raised during the tour were 
several dealing with the Fine Arts Center and the Graduate Re- 
search Center. The problems within the Fine Arts Center and the 
actions taken on them included the following: 

— While the Board had accepted the building in 
November, 1976, it had not accepted the light- 
ing and sound systems. 

— The Supervisory Data System, which controlled 
the internal environment in the building, had 
the capability of alerting the control opera- 
tor to a failure within the system and to a 
fire in the building; however, it could not 
distinguish between the two. The system was 
designed this way and it was being changed 
in-house so that the operator would know im- 
mediately whether an alarm signalled a fail- 
ure or a fire. 

— Most of the leaks in the building had been 
located and eliminated; probes were still 
made to locate the leaks over the gallery; 
the chief reason for the leaks was that the 
outside of the building was both a ceiling 
and a roof; the roofing contractor was ab- 
sorbing the costs. 

— The problems with the ventilating system in 
the music wing stemmed from the specifica- 
tions; the campus was repairing and paying 
for the corrections. 

— Problems with the exterior doors were the 
result of a design error — the doors weren't 
strong enough, they would be replaced through 
a change order. 

— The lighting system was now complete; when it 
had been checked out, the Board would be asked 
to accept it. 

-3- 



B & G 
3/15/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Report on 
Acceptance of 
Buildings 



B & G 
3/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

— The design for the sound system had at long last 
been agreed upon and would soon go out to bid. 

— Finally, an extension on the building appropri- 
ation had been requested and the BBC had con- 
curred that it be granted. 

For the Graduate Research Center the issues and actions 
included: 

— The major problems of the chilled water line 
strainers; the BBC, over the objections of the 
Planning Office, had made the system opera- 
tional without strainers; the system worked, 
so that problem solved itself. 

— The internal accoustical problems, which were 
correctable; and the BBC was working with the 
Planning Office on them. 

— The external noise problems of the building, 
which were being studied; when built, the 
building conformed to acceptable noise levels; 
the levels had been changed since and now the 
building was in violation; the noise pollution 
was particularly high on the north side of the 
building, where it was aimed directly at a 
group of houses; after some prodding the BBC 
was acting in this matter and an accoustical 
consultant would soon be appointed. 

Mr. Littlefield continued by noting the present status 
of the Tillson Power Plant was that the BBC had received a report 
on the excavated line from Jackson and Moreland, and had turned 
it over to C.T. Main for comment. When the BBC had both in 
hand, they would be given to the Planning Office, and the Trustee 
would receive definitive comments. 

In the matter of the Library tower, Mr. Littlefield 
continued, the contractor had repaired the facade of the tower 
to cure the problem of spalling bricks. The work had been paid 
for by the contractor and the BBC. The Planning Office was 
waiting for a full cycle of seasons to see if the cure worked. 
If further work was necessary on the facade, there was $250,000 
left from the appropriation for the building to pay for this. 
If no further work was needed, the money would be used in one of 
three ways — to install a sixth elevator; if this was not possible 
certain fire and safety corrections would be made; if this was 
not possible, the money would be used for equipment. A proposal 
would be brought to the Board. 

Chairman Spiller noting that he was speaking for 
Trustee Burack as well as himself, asked if the funds could be 
used to purchase books. Mr. Littlefield said that the Legislature 
would have to approve such a change in the appropriation. Since 
the BBC had not recommended an extension in the appropriation, 

-4- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the funds, if not used, would revert to the state. 

Mr. Littlefield then reminded the Committee that at 
the September 1977 meeting, the Board had authorized the Chan- 
cellor at Amherst, in conjunction with the President, to negoti- 
ate and execute an agreement with the Pioneer Valley Transit 
Authority regarding a bus facility. Originally the plans for the 
facility called for a three acre site; now, partly at the behest 
of the Amherst campus, a five acre site was planned. He said he 
would keep the Committee informed on further developments. 

Speaking to the subject of building acceptance at 
UM/Boston, Mr. Prince said that the Trustees had not accepted any 
of the buildings. The BBC, on the other hand, had accepted 
Buildings 020 and 150 and the site work, including such miscel- 
laneous items as rat control and the methane gas problem. 

The heating/ventilating problem of the system leading 
to the classrooms of College I had been solved; there was a sum 
of $120,000 available to correct the system leading to the faculty 
offices; and the BBC was studying the problems of the rest of the 
heating/ventilating system, and it was possible that the Trustees 
would be asked to approve a further capital outlay request. 
] Further, the BBC was now assembling documentation and was con- 
sidering lawsuits against the contractor and the architect. 

The promenade roof on the library was being repaired, 
Mr. Prince continued. At the request of the BBC the contractor 
had inspected the roof and had expressed astonishment at the 
condition of the roof and had agreed to fix it. Another serious 
concern with the library was that there was cracking in the face 
bricks. A similar situation was occurring on the facade of the 
j science building. Both were being studied. Mr. Prince con- 
cluded by noting that problems were being solved and that the 
campus would soon recommend the acceptance of certain buildings. 

Chairman Spiller asked what the current status of the 
Clark Physical Education Building was. Mr. Prince said that the 
bid specifications for the building had included the hockey rink, 
the swimming pool, the main gym and the general areas; in other 
words, the building as it had been designed when the Legislature 
appropriated funds for it in 1974. Six contractors had submitted 
ibids. The low (and successful) bidder was D. Antonellis of 
Alison. The bid was within the appropriation. The BBC had 
issued a notice to the bidder to proceed on March 20, 1978. Mr. 
Prince said that there was about $600,000 in the appropriation 
for site work which had not been acted on. He said he intended to 
write to the BBC concerning this matter so that the site work 
could be completed at the same time as the building. Chairman 
Spiller said that those on campus and in the Central Administra- 
tion were to be complimented for their efforts. 

-5- 



B & G 
3/15/78 



UM/Boston — 
Report on 
Acceptance 
of Buildings 



B & G 
3/15/78 



UM/Worces 
Acceptanc 
Buildings 



ter — 
e of 



UM/ Boston- 
Location o 
State Arch 
at Harbor 
Campus 



f 
ives 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Speaking for the Worcester campus, Mr. Campbell said 
work on the Teaching Hospital was still being completed. In 
January, 1978, the Director of the BBC had informed the campus 
that the Bureau was ready to accept the building. This readiness 
was cancelled when the BBC was told that there were some eighty 
exterior and interior leaks in the building; that the heating/ 
ventilating system had never worked properly — the system could 
not be balanced because the building had yet to be fully metered; 
most serious was the problem with the smoke damper system, which 
on occasion vented smoke into the building. 

As regards the Medical School Building, Mr. Campbell 
continued, there were a number of unsettled items. These were 
being discussed with the BBC and Administration and Finance and 
a meeting would be held on March 30 to establish a priority list. 
At the meeting the problems of the Hospital would also be dis- 
cussed. Mr. Campbell said that working with the BBC, during its 
present time of troubles, was very discouraging. 

Mr. Kaludis said that the University should consider 
its relationship with the BBC. That is, the Bureau when letting 
a contract, should offer certain commitments to the University; 
the BBC practice of not withholding funds until a building was 
functioning should be changed; and, when appropriations were made 
for correcting defects, the University should be in a position to 
move immediately. Chairman Spiller said an update on the con- 
tract-letting process would be helpful. 

The meeting then discussed Location of State Archives 
at Harbor Campus — UM/Boston. Mr. Kaludis said the basic object 
here was to give the Commonwealth an indication of the Univer- 
sity's intent to convey land to it for the construction of the 
State Archives. 

Obviously, the decision as to the actual location of 
the site was a matter for the Trustees to decide. There were two 
possible sites involved and it was understood that Secretary 
Guzzi had asked architects for proposals for each site. Mr. 
Kaludis said he was aware that Chairman Spiiler was concerned 
about one of the sites; however, the decision of which site was 
to be conveyed was yet to be made. The vote now being considered 
was phrased in very general terms and would simply express an in- 
tent to convey. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said the Trustees should know 
of the program planning now underway by the History and American 
Studies Departments, which plans involved an interface with the 
State Archives. The History Department was designing a Masters 
in Archival Studies program. A market study had indicated that 
graduates of the program could be placed not only in the Boston 
area but in archives across the country. The American Studies 
Department had an ongoing internship program and was developing 
such a program which would use the State Archives as a resource. 
For these and other reasons the campus was looking forward to the 
construction of the Archives. 

-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Spiller said that it was intended that the 
Archives would be more of a research library than a storage vault 
It would be similar and complementary to the Kennedy Library. 
He said it was his understanding that the building would have abo 
103,000 square feet of usable space. Unequipped, it was an $8 to 
$10 million project. One of the indirect spinoffs of the 
University lawsuit over the Physical Education Building was that 
the State Archives had received $500,000 for planning the new 
building. The archivists were suitably grateful for this boon. 
They also had done market research on possible uses of the buildi 



ut 



B & G 
3/15/78 



i?g 



Mr. Prince said he had attended a BBC meeting recently 
and the intent was to narrow the twelve proposals for the Archives 
now in hand to five, then to three, and to submit these to the 
Designer Selection Board, with a view to receiving a capital 
outlay in FY 1979. 

Chairman Spiller said that the nub of the matter was 
the specific site, and that the Trustees obviously had the right 
to protect the interests of the University in the development of 
Columbia Point. He said that the motion at hand would keep the 
options of the Trustees open. Mr. Kaludis agreed that it did. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded, and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the President to transmit to Secretary of State 
Paul Guzzi a letter stating the University's intent 
to convey a parcel of land located North of the 
North perimeter road of the Harbor Campus to 
the Commonwealth. This parcel of land is to 
serve as the site for the construction of a State 
Archives Building. 

Conveyance of this land will be subject to the 
terms of an agreement between the Secretary of 
State and the University as to the specific 
location of the land and buildings thereon 
and such other restrictions and easements as 
may be required for compatible joint use of 
access and utilities. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. 




Dorothy Eicjffel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of 

Trustees 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 






I 



I 






1 



ATTENDANCE : 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

March 15, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

14th Floor Conference Room 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President 
Patterson; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Batiste, Breyer, Burack, 
Dukakis and Morgenthau 

Other Trustees : Trustee Baker; Mr. Callahan representing 
Trustee Anrig 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Management 

> 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost; Mr. Shapiro, Dean, Faculty of Natural Sciences and 
Mathematics 

UM/ Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Ms. Berman, Director, Institute 
for Learning and Teaching; Professors Martin and Schwartz, Fac- 
ulty Representatives 

Guests : Mr. 0' Sullivan, Student Trustee Elect, UM/Boston; Ms. 
Shukri, Executive Office of Educational Affairs 

The meeting came to order at 2:07 p.m. The first item 
dealt with was New England Regional Student Program Tuition Sur- 
charge (Doc. T78-062) . The Committee was told that this program, 
administered by the New England Board of Higher Education, had 
been established some years ago in an attempt to foster coopera- 
tion and to prevent the duplication of costly academic programs. 
New England students, both undergraduates and graduates, could 
enroll in certain designated programs, and regardless of resi- 
dence, were charged in-state tuition. In the fall of 1977, 
N.E.B.H.E., without consultation and without readily apparent 
rationale, voted to allow participating institutions to impose 
a 25 percent surcharge on in-state tution to out-of-state stu- 
dents enrolled in the program. Of the participating institutions 
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Lowell had 
voted to impose the surcharge; Southeastern Massachusetts and 
the Massachustees Community Colleges had voted not to impose 
it; Connecticut had decided to postpone action. 



New England 
Regional 
Student Pro- 
gram Tuition 
Surcharge 
(Doc. T78-062) 



F & E P 
3/15/78 



UM/Boston — 
Report on 
Institute 
for Learning 
and Teaching 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In the course of the ensuing discussion it became 
apparent that this was a many faceted matter which would require 
the input of more Trustees than were present before bringing it 
to the Board. Accordingly, it was agreed to carry the matter 
over to a subsequent meeting of the Committee. 

Chairman Troy then called for the Report of the Insti- 
tute for Learning and Teaching — UM/Boston. Chancellor Van 
Ummersen introduced Ms. Berman, Director of the Institute. 
] President Patterson noted that he was proud and happy to have 
served on the committee which, after a nationwide search, had 
found Ms. Berman. Her coming had been much to the advantage of 
the University. Chancellor Van Ummersen echoed these sentiments. 

Ms. Berman said that it might be of interest to note 
that one of the chief problems of the I.L.T. was that not enough 
people knew if its existence. It began in 1970 after the Ford 
Foundation agreed to fund a proposal which emphasized UM/Boston ! s 
commitment to the community through service to the public shools. 
The I.L.T. was one of the many efforts made to ensure that the 
University was responsive to the community's needs rather than 
being seen as an adversary. 

In the intervening years the I.L.T. had concentrated on 
serving schools in the metropolitan area, with a definite empha- 
sis on the Boston schools. A number of successes had been 
achieved, particularly in designing a model of intervention in 
public schools. In the 1950' s and 1960 's funding for the improve 
ment of primary and secondary education had become available to 
universities. The universities responded with a series of 
short-range research projects which led the teachers in the 
schools to view academicians as outsiders who imposed their ideas 
on the schools, exploited them for research purposes and then 
criticized the teachers in the published results. On the other 
hand, staff from the I.L.T. consciously sought a low profile, 
avoided advocacy of any particular educational philosophy or 
method did not participate in research projects and were very 
good at listening. Problems which were uncovered were solved 
cooperatively. 

Another innovation was the Another Course to College 
program. This was devised by University officials with Mr. Leary 
then Superintendant of the Boston public schools. The program 
identifies highly motivated juniors and seniors enrolled in high 
school business or vocational programs and allows them an inten- 
sive college prepartory experience. Students who successfully 
completed the two-year course are guaranteed admission to 
UM/Boston. Last year there were 90 A.C.C. graduates. Of these 
78 went on to college and of these 28 enrolled at UM. Boston. The 
I.L.T. intented to keep tabs on the graduates and monitor their 
sucess rates. Additionally, the I.L.T. would counsel those en- 
rolled at UM/Boston. 

-2- 



I 



■ 



I 






UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Another I.L.T. program was Flexible Campus, through 
which outstanding high school students were able to enroll in 
introductory level courses at UM/Boston, without charge. Ms. 
Berman said she would like to strengthen this program by stepping 
up recruitment partly by training high school guidance counselors 
to serve as recruiting agents. 

These programs were part of a larger effort to redirect 
the Institute somewhat away from the community and more towards 
the University. Another part of the effort would be a proposal 
soon to go forward to Professor Broderick, Associate Dean of the 
College of Arts and Sciences. The proposal would be to implement 
a program to help instructors of introductory level courses to 
incorporate basic skills instruction and other curriculum mod- 
ifications into their teaching. In other words, the professors 
will train the instructors to adapt their teaching methods to the 
skill levels of incoming non-traditional students without any 
| lowering of academic standards. A preliminary version of the 
proposal had been approved by the Fund for the Improvement of 
Post-Secondary Education. 

Chairman Troy asked if this involved something beyond 
tutoring. Ms. Berman said that it did. At present the Univer- 
sity deserved an A+ for its academic support services. A vast 
array of compensatory educational experiences, geared to the 
learner, was offered. The Institute took the position that this 
array was excellent; however, it wasn't doing the job — the latest 
student attrition figures had been shocking. It was suggested 
that in addition to academic support services for the students, 
the possibility of changing some methods of teaching be explored. 
A number of departmental chairmen had agreed with this suggestion 
In response to Chairman Troy's question, Ms. Berman said people 
from outside the University would conduct the training, not 
I.L.T. staff members. 

In response to Chairman Troy's further questions, 
Ms. Berman said the Institute was part of Vice Chancellor Steamer 
operation; he passed on budget and staffing requests. At present 
in addition to herself, there was one administrative assistant, 
seven consultant trainers, two of whom were on soft money, and a 
secretary. The field of study of the consultant trainers had 
been either educational psychology or educational administration. 



F & E P 
3/15/78 



Mr. Lynton asked about the program involving the 
Kennedy Library. Ms. Berman said that Laura Cooper, an Institute 
staff member who worked in Community District VI, had put to- 
gether a group of four Dorchester schools who were interested in 
developing curricula in government studies for elementary school 
children. When Ms. Cooper approached the staff at the Library 
she found the staff there very eager to work with the public 
schools. Ms. Berman said this was a good example of the brokering 
function of the Institute. Staff from the public schools, the 
Library and the academic staff at Boston had a mutual interest 
which had been brought together by the efforts of the I.L.T. 



-3- 



F & E P 
3/15/78 



UM/Boston — 
Report on 
19 7 7 Summer 
School and 
Proposed 
Continuing 
Education 
Activities 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Ms. Cooper's approach to this was also of interest. 
She started with the school teachers and determined what their 
interests and needs were. She and another researcher then went 
to the JFK Library and collected materials that would be of use 
to the teachers. The teachers gave a class using the materials 
and reported back to Ms. Cooper on the success or failure of the 
materials. Based on these reports the Institute had assembled 
twelve "market-tested" curriculum packages. These were now 
available at the District VI Resource Center in the UM/Boston 
Library. Efforts were underway to seek private funding to expand 
this program. 

Mr. Lynton said a related development was now just 
underway. It would involve the Kennedy Library, appropriate 
academic departments at Boston and the I.L.T. Essentially, the 
program would train UM/Boston students as docents or guides for 
the Library. As museum guides they would require a considerable 
knowledge of the subject matter as well as a considerable amount 
of sophistication in the techniques of conducting tours. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said they did help in dealing with budget 
and in assembling proposals; however, a person was needed to 
generate ideas and to meet with faculty and to develop the heart 
of the proposals. Mr. Steamer said he felt this would be a worth- 
while investment. When Ms. Berman was appointed, he had told her 
that in all probability there would not be money for permanent 
positions and that if the Institute were to grow, it would have 
to be done with soft money. 



Chairman Troy said the I.L.T. report mentioned that 
various desegregation rulings had narrowed the scope of the 
Institute to a single Community District. This was contrary to 
the original intent of having city-wide focus. He asked if the 
Institute intended to go back to the original intent. Ms. Berman 
said this was a complicated issue. The desegregation ruling had 
paired each Community District with a given University. This 
had caused territorial imperative problems. The Institute staff 
felt it would be more politic to seek client bases outside the 
city of Boston and had, in fact, established a program in 
Cambridge. Chairman Troy thanked Ms. Berman for her presentation 

The Committee then discussed Report on 19 77 Summer 
School and Proposed Continuing Education Activities — UM/Boston. 
Mr. Lynton said that the University Assembly at Boston had 
recently voted to continue the Trustee approved fee-based Summer 
School. Also, the campus was interested in beginning to develop 
some non-credit continuing education activities. Initially this 
would be done on a very modest scale. Such activities would 
require the establishment of a trust fund. A recommendation was 
being prepared for action by the Committee on Budget and Finance. 
Chairman Troy said both activities sounded very interesting and 
encouraging. Noting that he was aware that some faculty did not : 
like to teach summer school, he asked how Boston recruited summer 



I 



I 



" 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

school faculty. Professor Martin, speaking as Chairman of the 
Department of Physics, said that in his department faculty volun- 
teered and presently, for the first time, there were more volun- 
teers than there were faculty slots. Professor Schwartz said 
that in the department he chaired — Psychology — this was also the 
case. Noticing the financial plight of the less senior faculty, 
the department gave preference to faculty in reverse of the usual 
practice, so that assistant professors were chosen before associate 
professors and associates were given preference over full prof- 
fessors . 

Mr. Steamer said it should be noted that the Summer 
School was not a vehicle for giving the faculty extra money. The 
School served a valid academic purpose. Determinations were 
made as to what courses should be offered and then faculty were 
hired, some from staff and some from outside. All instructors, 
regardless of rank, received the same salary. 



Another item of interest, Mr. Steamer continued, was 
that a single catalog for Amherst and Boston for the 1978 Summer 
Schools was being considered. In response to the Chairman's 
questions Mr. Steamer said that Boston was being a little more 
conservative in 1978 and the increase in enrollment in 1978 was 
not expected to be as large as that in 1977. With the exception 
of a few science offerings, the courses last six weeks. Three-, 
four, and five-hour credit courses were offered. Normally, 
students enrolled in Summer School earned six credit hours; how- 
ever a student could earn as many as twelve. 



In the matter of continuing education activities, 
Mr. Steamer continued, the program, as had been said, would be a 
modest one and would offer only non-credit courses. Some courses 
already being given would be part of the program as would new 
courses which would fulfill community demands — for example, the 
University's prison program, which offered courses on campus, and at 
Norfolk and Walpole. These were now paid for by the Massachusetts 
Department of Corrections. As those enrolled in the courses were 
eligible for federal aid, establishment of the trust fund would 
save the state money. 

In addition, Mr. Steamer continued, the Massachusetts 
Horticultural Society had asked for help in upgrading their 
educational program. The Boston Chamber of Commerce would like 
to see courses in management and the Boston Anti-Poverty Program 
had requested paralegal training. 

Overall, establishment of the trust fund would enable 
the University to have increased activity in the evening. While 
the campus was open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., there was relatively 
little activity from 6 p.m. to closing. Increased activity would 
result in better use of facilities and increased visibility. 
Professor Schwartz said that the trust fund would provide flex- 
ibility in designing courses. At present when a request for a 



F & E P 
3/15/78 



-5- 



F & E P 
3/15/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Transfer of 
Medical 
Technology 
Program 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

special course was received by the Psychology department, the 
department was limited in its ability to respond. This because 
of the need to adhere to academic and admissions requirements 
and because there was no mechanism in place within which to desigr 
a special non-credit course. The trust fund would serve as such 
a mechanism. Mr. Lynton said there were two good features in 
Boston's approach to this program. One was that courses would be 
designed by, and come out of, individual departments. 
The other was that the program would be coordinated by the 
Provost's office as an extension of the academic enterprise. 
Further, as the trust fund builds and after an appropriate fee 
structure is developed, one could hope that there would be a 
small surplus for program development. 

The Committee then dealt with Transfer of Medical 



I 



Technology Program — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-061) . Mr. Lynton said 
there was a procedural matter as well as a substantive issue be- 
fore the Committee. The procedural matter was that the Faculty 
Senate at Amherst had voted to make changes in the curriculum of 
(Doc. T78-061) the Medical Technology Program at the same time as it had voted 

to recommend that the Program be transferred from the School of 
Health Sciences. The changes in the curriculum, while substantial, 
did not constitute a new program; therefore the Board would not 
have to take action in this regard; however, Chancellor Bromery 
asked that the Trustees be apprised of the changes. The issue 
that the Trustees would have to approve was the transfer of the 
program. In response to Chairman Troy's question, Mr. Lynton 
said that the modified program would not have to be brought to 
the attention of the Board of Higher Education. 

Mr. Allen said that a good part of the work in the 
Program had always been taken in the Department of Microbiology; 
therefore the transfer would be a relatively simple matter. In 
the modified program the students would have an option not pre- 
viously available — that of taking a fifth, essentially clinical, 
year and earning two degrees, one in Medical Technology and one 
in Microbiology. 

Mr. Shapiro said that some curiosity had been expressed 
as to why the School of Health Services was interested in giving 
up the program. The reason was rather straight-forward — the 
School was offering essentially the same program as was offered 
by five or six of the State Colleges. It was felt that while 
there was a substantial market for graduates of four-year prof- 
essors in Medical Technology, the State Colleges could satisfy 
this market and that the University should not duplicate programs 
On the other hand, the Hospitals had said they prized the UM/ 
Amherst graduates. Invariably Amherst graduates scored in the 
top rank in the national medical technology examinations. 

Given this situation, Mr. Shapiro continued, it had 
been decided to continue the program, altered so as not to dup- 
licate those offered by the State Colleges. UM/Amherst students 
would receive considerably more laboratory experience in the 



' 



-6- 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Department of Microbiology before they went to the affiliated 
hospitals for their clinical year. Graduates would have the 
option of becoming registered microbiologists at end end of the 
fourth year; taking the fifth year option and becoming accrediated 
medical technologists and earning a second bachelor's degree; or 
going on to graduate school in microbiology. 

There were two uncertainties about the program — student 
response and tuition for the fifth year. If students decide 
early on to be medical techno logiest , they may well choose to en- 
roll in a State College program. Mr. Shapiro said the matter of 
tuition for the fifth year at the hospital was yet to be settled. 
In his own view, the students should not be charged tuition. All 
of the training was given by the hospital staffs, and the students 
would be receiving very little from the University. The students 
should be required to pay certain fees, but full tuition would be 
inappropriate. On being told that the students would not be 
paid while at the hospital, Chairman Troy said he agreed with 
this position. Mr. Shapiro concluded by noting that the matter 
would have to resolved in the near future as enquiries about the 
program were now being received. 

Chairman Troy asked about the matching funds for 
equipment mentioned in the document. Mr. Shapiro said the funds 
would not be very large. The question of immediately seeking a 
grant from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had 
been discussed. It had been decided to wait for a least a year, 
at which time student demand could be determined with a degree 
of certainty. 



I 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 
approve the transfer of the Program in 
Medical Technology from the School of 
Health Sciences to the Department of 
Microbiology, UM/Amherst, as described 
in Doc. T78-061. 

There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. 




John F. Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary of 
the University 



-7- 



F St E P 
3/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



» 



i 



■ 



1 



ATTENDANCE 



1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON AUDITS 

March 22, 1978; 9:00 a.m. 

14th Floor Conference Room 

Office of the President 

1 Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Dennis; President 
Patterson; Trustee Crain; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Fielding 

Other Trustees : Trustee Baker 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business Services 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director of Budgeting and Institutional 
Studies 

UM/Boston : Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Bice, Hospital Director 



Guests : Mr. Harrington, Hospital Management Board; Mr. 0' Sullivan 
Student Trustee Elect, UM/Boston 

The meeting came to order at 9:08 a.m. Chairman Dennis 
said the Committee was now moving into the area of one of its 
main functions — reviewing both external and internal audits and 
the management responses thereto. The primary role of the Com- 
mittee would be to keep tabs on the implementation of audit rec- 
ommendations and, in cases where the recommendations were not 
implemented, to ascertain the reason for this. As Mr. Kaludis' 
letter of March 14 had indicated, a number of campus audits were 
available and the Committee would have to make some decision as 
to the order in which these would be reviewed. Chairman Dennis 
said he had gone over a few of the audits, and in the audit for 
UM/Boston had seen what might become a recurring problem. Many 
of the recommendations of the State Auditor were repeats of a 
recently completed internal audit. This could indicate a dupli- 
cation of effort. 



Mr. Kaludis said that it was hoped that by the end of 
the year, with a Director of Auditing on board, the "mosaic" 
of auditing would become apparent. The mosaic would consist of 
external audits, including federal and state audits, internal 
audits and audits by third party payers. There were areas where 



Summaries of 
Campus Audits 
and Examples • 
of Internal 
Audits 



j 



Audits 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

auditing would take place without University or Committee impetus 
and the Committee would have to decide when an external audit 
was sufficient and there would be no need to duplicate the effort 
However, in the case at UM/Boston just mentioned, some of the 
problems mentioned in the State audit had, in fact, been noted 
and corrected prior to the appearance of the state audit. 

He noted that the protocols the Committee had adopted 
would allow some similar problems to be dealt with in the annual 
audit report. This option would enable the Committee to dis- 
charge its oversight function without going over each audit piece 
by piece. The Director of Auditing should be able to provide 
staff analyses that were not now possible. Staff limitations had 
meant that the most recent audit package was delivered to the 
Trustees with just an inventory rather than with analyses. The 
analyses would indicate which were clean audits that is (those 
which revealed few or no problems) and which audits uncovered 
problems. 

Chairman Dennis said this would be useful, particularly 
when dealing with internal audits. These the Committee might 
choose to review on the basis of a quarterly analysis. The pro- 
cedures the Director of Auditing would have to follow in this 
instance would have to be clearly spelled out. External audits 
would probably have to be scrutinized more carefully. For these 
reasons it was important that the items on the inventory of 
audits be prioritized, not only in terms of the order in which 
they were to be reviewed but also in terms of the depth of analy- 
sis each needed. 

Trustee Crain said that in his organization one could 
challenge an auditor's recommendation though this did not happen 
very frequently. When no challenge was made, one had to make a 
specific commitment to act. He asked if this were the case at 
the University. Mr. Kaludis said that this was a loop which 
would have to be closed, otherwise the system would never func- 
tion properly. Another thing that needed saying was that the 
inventory was compiled after the fact; if there were an auditing 
plan in place which indicated what kinds of audits were expected, 
e.g., external or internal, and the scope of the audit, the 
framework for reviewing the audits would be in place. He said 
that by the end of FY78 an audit plan would have been laid out. 

Chairman Dennis said there were many things the Com- 
mittee could deal with; however, he said he would prefer to work 
on putting the inventory in some sort of order. Mr. Kaludis 
said that one value of the inventory and the sample audits was 
that they gave guidance as to how to establish priorities. 
Assuming that there were no burning problems in the examples or 
the inventory, they could be accepted as information and the 
Committee could, if it wished, move to the next step. 

-2- 



I 



■ 



» 



1 



1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Dennis said the Committee should be told which 
were the audits that had uncovered problems. Mr. Kaludis said 
there was an example at hand — the audit of the Health Center at 
UM/Amherst had indicated problems in the cash handling operation. 
This was a campus-wide problem and was one which the campus ad- 
ministration had made efforts to correct. The problem had been 
caused, at least in part, by the way in which the campus had 
grown. Satellite operations had been established with little 
regard to managerial controls. There were several dozen cash 
handling operations at Amherst. The Amherst experience should 
serve as an example to UM/Worcester as it developed and grew. 

Mr. Beatty said that the audit indicated another prob- 
lem — the University's organizational structure for dealing with 
financial matters. Cash handling, until a few months ago, had 
been a University function rather than a campus one. This situ- 
ation had led to confusion as to which were campus responsibili- 
ties and which were those of the central administration. Until 
such time as all responsibilities were clarified, problems would 
continue. 

Trustee Crain said that the administration of a complex 
organization had an obligation to build in safeguards to preclude 
staff from falling into traps. He noted that anyone, given the 
right circumstances, could fall into a trap. It was a very heavy 
responsibility of an organization to forestall this. Whoever had 
the responsibility for designing the University's cash handling 
system, whether from a campus or the central administration, had 
the responsibility to build safeguards into the design. Chairman 
Dennis said that if there were problems between the central 
administration and the campus system, this should be brought to 
the attention of the Trustees. Many times there problems which 
the Trustees were unaware of and the problems persisted. Mr. 
Beatty said that he had not meant that there were problems in 
cash handling at present but there had been problems in the past. 
He said it was his understanding that the Budget and Finance Com- 
mittee intended to look into the financial structure of the Uni- 
versity. Problems of a structural nature were something the 
Budget and Finance Committee might wish to consider. Trustee 
Crain said the Budget and Finance Committee would propose a 
financial structure and would devise scenarios describing its 
operation. However, this did not relieve those who were in 
charge of cash, or materials, or purchases of their managerial 
responsibility to build in safeguards and to see that these 
safeguards worked. 

Chairman Dennis said he wanted to return to step one. 
He noted that Mr. Kaludis had used the phrase, "We selected 
these audits." He said he guessed he was getting back to the 
"shirt sleeve" point of view, that the Committee wanted to look 



-3- 



Audits 
3/22/78 



Audits 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

at the scope of all the audits initially, and then to decide on 
a process as to which ones to look at in detail. He noted that 
one of the main problems in the past had been that audit reports 
were not being received at the Board level despite the fact that 
the Trustees had asked that this be done. This was one of the 
main reasons the Audit Committee had been established. He said 
it was obvious that the Committee did not wish to see all inter- 
nal audits; however, a process had to be in place which would 
enable the Committee to be certain that it was seeing all the 
audit reports it wished to see. Mr. Kaludis said it was his 
assumption that the Committee's involvement in the adoption of 
an annual audit plan would give the administration direction as 
to what areas the Trustees felt were in need of attention. 
Chairman Dennis agreed, but pointed out that this plan was a 
year out; and the Committee was faced with the immediate prob- 
lem of a number of audits on hand, including several Peat, 
Marwick & Mitchell audits which the Committee wanted to review 
as well as the management responses. 



P 



Preliminary 
Report of 
1977 Peat, 
Marwick & 
Mitchell 
Audits 



Mr. Kaludis said the Preliminary Report of 1977 Peat, 
Marwich & Mitchell Audits — UM/ Amherst had been received and 
Mr. Beatty was prepared to report on them. He said that staff 
had a firm intent to review these audits when they were in final 
form. 

Mr. Beatty said that at present Peat, Marwick & 
Mitchell was conducting six audits. The campus had received 
drafts of the audits and financial statements of the Boarding 
Halls, Campus Center, Continuing Education and Student Health 
Services, but had not received the management reports nor the 
audits and financial statements of the Parking-Transporation 
System or the Residence Halls. 

The audit of the Boarding Halls, Mr. Beatty continued, 
was absolutely clean; the auditors had praised the financial 
operation of the system. The Health Services audit was also 
clean, except for a comment that the situation of pharmacists' 
having access to the cash register could lead to inventory con- 
trol problems. This situation had since been resolved. The 
Continuing Education audit indicated difficulties, difficulties 
which stemmed from the way in which the operation was funded. 
Eventually a decision would have to be made as to whether the 
University wished to continue the Continuing Education program, 
or whether the University wished to put significant amounts of 
state funds into the program. The completion of the audit was 
delayed because counsel's opinion was being sought on whether 
it was the intent of Chapter 75 that all continuing education 
should be self-supporting. 

The Campus Center audit was better than that of 
FY1976, Mr. Beatty said; however, there were two problems. 
The Conference Services division's recordkeeping practices left 
much to be desired. Secondly, the auditors were considering 



■ 



I 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



issuing a "going concern" report on the Center. Such a report 
was almost never issued when auditing a public institution; 
however the Center was a white elephant. The going concern 
report would only restate what had long been known about the 
Center. 

The draft of the Parking-Transportation audit would 
soon be available and would be a clean audit. Finally, the 
Residence Halls were to receive a clean audit. The auditors 
were again asking for clarification on possible violations of 
the Management and Services Agreements. Mr. Beatty said the 
only real problems were those of Continuing Education and the 
Campus Center. 

Trustee Crain said he was still concerned about the 
time span between receipt of the draft audit and receipt of the 
management letter. From a management point of view, the latter 
was the crucial document. Chairman Dennis said this was another 
main reason for the establishment of the Committee and was the 
reason why the Committee wished to meet with the auditors of 
major audits to discuss the problem. He said that in his exper- 
ience as an auditor the management letter could be written 
fairly quickly. Compiling the financial report was the time 
consuming aspect of the audit. Trustee Crain said the priorities 
of the auditing firm also helped determine the time lag. It 
was another case of the squeaking wheel getting the oil. Mr. 
Beatty said that at UM/Amherst the financial report was seen as 
the priority item. He suggested that the Trustees might want 
to meet with the auditors in order to clarify this situation. 
Mr. Kaludis said there were time frames established in the proto- 
cols setting the limits for various responses to the audits. 
Chairman Dennis said that similar deadlines should be established 
for the auditors. He suggested that the next Committee meeting 
concentrate on the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell audits. 

Chairman Dennis then asked for discussion of the 
Draft of State Audit of UM/Boston , noting that there seemed to 
be an overlap between the State audit and a recently completed 
internal audit. Mr. Baxter said that he had asked for an in- 
ternal audit some time ago. The auditors had been told which 
were the main problems, and by the time their report was sub- 
mitted, the problems had been corrected. When the State auditors 
arrived, they were given a copy of the report. Mr. Baxter said 
he was somewhat surprised when their audit came out some three 
and one-half months later and he could find neither citation nor 
recognition of the use the State auditors had made of the interna!, 
audit. Mr. Hester said that Mr. Baxter was trying to say, as 
politely as possible, that the State auditors had spent three 
and half months copying the internal audit. He said the same 
thing happened last year at UM/Worcester . Mr. Baxter said that 
when the annual audit plan was devised, provision should be made 
for interaction of external and internal audits. 



Audits 
3/22/78 



•5- 



UM/Boston — 

Draft of 

State Audit and 

University 

Response 



Audits 
3/22/78 

Specifications 
for Audit of 
University 
Hospital and 
Group Practice 
Accounts, and 
Suggested 
Vendors' List 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The meeting then discussed Specifications for Audit of 
University Hospital and Group Practice Accounts, and Suggested 
Vendors' List . Mr. Kaludis said it should be noted that this 
was the first substantive audit proposal to come before the 
Committee and that the Teaching Hospital and the Group Practice 
would, in time and in terms of non-state funds, be the largest 
dollar accounts in the University. He said the Hospital budget 
in three or four years would be in the range of $60 to $65 
million. Mr. Kaludis said that because this was the first audit 
and because of the size of the unit involved, the request for 
a proposal document would have to be put together with great 
care. 

There were a number of dynamics involved in this. One 
was the division of labor between the Trustees and management, 
the central administration/campus issue, and the expected role 
of the Hospital Management Board. The University had been very 
lucky to have had Mr. Harrington's very valuable advice in 
drafting the proposal in his role as Chairman of the Finance 
Committee of the H.M.B. Mr. Kaludis said that all of the factors 
would have to be resolved into some reasonable way to proceed. 
This because the Trustees had an obvious and vital interest in 
the progress of the audit, and there had to be a rational way 
to manage the audit. Finally, there had to be a rational way 
for the final report to find its way to the Trustees. The 
scope of the audit, the proposal for it, and the procedures of 
handling these matters had to be worked out very carefully. 

Chairman Dennis said that he had been very much im- 
pressed with the draft proposal, and on the first glance the 
suggested revisions had seemed relatively minor. However, after 
studying the revisions, he found them to be substantial and 
unacceptable. He said he would prefer to work with the original 
draft. He reminded the meeting that the Board's overall intent 
in establishing the Committee was to make it very clear to staff 
and to outsiders that outside auditors worked for the Board. 
The actual mechanics would have to be worked out by the Committee 
with the help of staff. Everyone should understand that the 
auditors reported to the Board, and were hired and paid by the 
Board, not by separate entities within the University. Chair- 
man Dennis said that some of the suggested changes might cloud 
this issue. 

Chairman Dennis said that while he was happy with the 
first draft, there was one matter which caused him concern. He 
reminded the meeting that when the Worcester audit was first 
discussed, a very strong statement was made about affirmative 
action in soliciting bids. It had been indicated that provision 
should be made in the solicitation to encourage bidders to sub- 
contract parts of the audit to minority firms. He said he did 
not see this particular concern of the Trustees reflected in 
the proposal. Mr. Kaludis said action had been taken in this 



-6- 



I 



■ 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



regard by UM/Worcester and the central administration. Talks 
had been held with the Massachusetts Society of Certified Public 
Accountants and the New York Society in order to identify 
minority firms that had experience in auditing health care 
systems. The Massachusetts Society had said there were no such 
firms in the Commonwealth; however, the Society had also said 
that their records could be examined to see if there were any 
minority firms that might have had related experience. Mr. 
Weston was going to do this. Mr. Kaludis concluded by noting 
that the specification for affirmative action could be placed 
in the proposal; that it was not in the draft was due to an 
oversight on his part. Trustee Crain questioned the need for 
specifying prior experience in the health field. People would 
not get the experience without getting the jobs. He said it 
was inconceivable that certain subcomponents of the Worcester 
complex could not be audited by a competent firm. Mr. Kaludis 
said that it had been suggested that the Group Practice could be 
audited separately and that this might be a way of attracting 
minority applicants; however, it was his judgement that the 
initial audit should be a single audit. This did not preclude 
parts of the audit being subcontracted to other firms. Trustee 
Crain said he was troubled by the fact that the specification 
of experience blocked affirmative action and was not in the 
spirit of the Board's wishes. 

Mr. Harrington said the original thought of the H.M.B. 
was, as Mr. Kaludis had stated, to break off the Group Practice 
and to require the principal auditor to issue an internal contro 
letter so that there would be no duplication in those facilities 
where the Hospital or the University performed service for the 
Group Practice. The central administration had suggested one 
audit and the H.M.B. had agreed to this. 

Problems with subcontracting, from the public 
accountants' viewpoints, Mr. Harrington continued, included 
those of deciding what should be subcontracted and of monitoring 
the audit as it was in progress. He said he had been involved 
in such arrangements and had found it difficult to tell a 
primary auditor that part of the work must be subcontracted, 
because the firm may have difficulty in finding a subcontractor 
that would be compatible with its operation. 

In the matter of experience in the health care field, 
he said he understood the concerns expressed about its impact on 
affirmative action; however, because this was an initial audit, 
he felt the auditing firm should have such experience. He said 
that in the list provided, there were only three firms in the 
region and one or two in the state which met the criteria of 
experience and ability to discharge effectively the audit 
responsibility. 



-7- 



Audits 
3/22/78 



Audits 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Dennis said that people frequently misjudge 
firms. What should be done to correct this was to give the 
firms the opportunity to describe their capabilities and exper- 
ience. In the matter of subcontracting, it had been his exper- 
that some years ago this caused a number of problems. Recently 
the firms had been able to solve such problems. He said that 
while subcontracting was not a requirement, proposers should be 
told of the special desires of the University in the area of 
affirmative action and the firms should respond as to how they 
would approach the problem. It might well be that the firm 
selected could not meet the University's wishes in this regard; 
however the record would show the University's interest. 

Trustee Crain said he understood that working with 
subcontractors was more complicated but he did not understand 
the apparent inability to build in specific standards which 
would ensure that subcontractors would produce quality work. 
He said he was particularly perplexed in his role as a Trustee 
of a public institution to be repeatedly faced with rationales 
that were no longer acceptable in the private sector. It was 
incredible to find a university still accepting rationales that 
the private sector had dropped ten years ago because they were 
untenable. It was his understanding that the Board was commit- 
ted to affirmative action. To fulfill this commitment, people 
would have to use imagination in doing things in other than, the 
easiest and surest ways. In order to attack some of the basic 
problems of society, economic equality had to be ensured. Un- 
less economic equality was ensured, all of the efforts to 
educate minorities would be in vain. The public sector should 
act. 

Mr. Bice said this matter had been given a great deal 
of consideration and he was seeking advice and counsel on how 
best to accomplish the Board's goals. One consideration was 
how far the search for auditors should extend. Should the 
search go outside the Commonwealth? The initial forays had not 
been very successful. 

Chairman Dennis said he did not understand why there 
was hesitation in soliciting minority firms. It would be worth- 
while to solicit a hundred firms even if only two or three 
proved to be able to do the work. Nothing would be lost in 
such a solicitation. He said he did not understand how firms 
could be pre-screened without really knowing what their cap- 
abilities were. Mr. Harrington said that he did not see that 
there had been a prescreening process. Short of soliciting 
every firm listed in the standard directories of auditing, every 
effort had been made to identify minority firms by calling the 
Massachusetts Society of CPA's. Chairman Dennis said that as 
chairman of the American Institute of Certified Public Account- 
ants Minority Recruitment and Placement Committee, he could 
state that the Massachusetts Society had a very weak program. 



-8- 



I 



■ 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

There were probably three minority CPA firms in the Commonwealth. 
Therefore, Massachusetts Society was the wrong place to seek in- 
formation. He said he was the most appropriate person in the 
country to talk to about minority CPA firms. Mr. Harrington 
said the H.M.B. was unaware of this. Chairman Dennis noted that 
he had supplied a list of minority firms, the most comprehensive 
list in the country, to UM/Worcester . Mr. Bice said the list 
had been used. 

Mr. Kaludis asked if the Trustees would agree to seek- 
ing firms outside the Commonwealth. Trustee Crain said it was 
his belief that the goal could be achieved within the Common- 
wealth. He said he could not, without any good reason, see a 
public institution going out of state. He said he had to say 
again that the approach being used was an approach that failed 
everyone in the early days. What was needed was a network and 
contacts to get the people who could produce. One had to use 
imagination, aggressiveness and initiative to accomplish this. 
At present, the University didn't have much credibility. 

Mr. Kaludis said that one aspect of this was that, ex- 
cept for UM/Amherst, the University had not had many external 
audits. He said it was his judgement that the University would 
have to go outside the Commonwealth. Chairman Dennis said that 
what may have to be done was to look at it. He said he thought 
that once things were in hand, then one could make that judge- 
ment and one could look at it and trade off the different pieces. 
It might be that the decision would be made to stay inside the 
Commonwealth, without a minority firm, but the effort would have 
accomplished a lot and hopefully would have wound up with a 
minority firm. One thing which would have been accomplished 
would have been to put the firms on notice that a major institu- 
tion was interested in affirmative action. Mr. Kaludis asked 
if it would be satisfactory to add a paragraph to the request 
for proposals relating to minority subcontracting. Chairman 
Dennis said this should be done and minority firms should be 
solicited as well. Mr. Kaludis said this would done. He then 
asked if the request should be sent to everyone on the minority 
CPA list. Chairman Dennis said the list should be used as one 
of the sources. If advice were needed as to which were the big 
firms, he would indicate which were the big firms. Also, he 
could supply the name of the appropriate person in Washington, 
D.C. who could supply further details. 



Chairman Dennis said that he and Mr. Kaludis had dis- 
cussed the rest of the request for proposals. He said he felt 
that the original draft needed very few changes. If this caused 
implementation problems, then these could be hammered out. Mr. 
Kaludis said the suggested revisions to the request were an attempt 
to bring it into line with the two operative documents of the 
Committee — the Trustee By-Law establishing the Committee and the 



Audits 
3/22/78 



-9- 



Audits 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

protocols the Committee had agreed upon. He said he was not 
satisfied with the revisions and that he would like the Commit- 
tee to direct him to try again to bring the request into conform- 
ity with the operative documents. This could be done very 
quickly. Chairman Dennis said he thought the draft did reflect 
the protocols. He said his attitude towards further revisions 
would be based on how much it changed the draft. 

Mr. Bice asked if there were any thoughts as to the 
length of the contract. Chairman Dennis said that when faced 
with the choice of one- two- or three-year contract, he pre- 
ferred the first. This left one with the option of either re- 
placing or rehiring the original auditor. The three-year contract 
offered the attraction of a growing and learning situation and 
would probably save money; however, one might also be stuck with 
an unsatisfactory firm. Mr. Bice said this matter had been much 
discussed and that his own thinking was that a two-year contract 
with cancellation protections built it would be desirable. 
Trustee Crain said his experience had always been with one-year 
contracts and he had yet to encounter a firm that refused to 
come back for a second year. Chairman Dennis said that a multi- 
year contract, particularly when an institution was in an expand- 
ing situation, had to have an escalator clause for the second 
year. If not worded very carefully, the clause could hurt the 
auditing firm because it was too tightly drawn, or the client 
could suffer because the clause was too loosely drawn. He said 
he would recommend a one-year contract. 

Mr. Bice said that as a practical matter he preferred 
a multi-year contract. His experience had been that auditing 
firms were usually rehired. Trustee Crain said one of his 
concerns with multiple year contracts was "lowballing" in the 
first year. Chairman Dennis said such contracts created prob- 
lems in negotiation. Either the auditing firm committed itself 
to a price up front for the length of the contract, or there 
was an escalator clause and one started playing some hard ball 
in the second and third years. One could avoid all this by 
signing a one-year contract. If a firm proved acceptable, one 
could renew the contract for succeeding years even if the firm 
did not offer the lowest bid. Mr. Bice said that since this 
was the first audit, the solicitation-of-bids process was taking 
an inordinate amount of staff time. Perhaps staff was incor- 
rectly assuming the solicitation process would always be so 
involved. Chairman Dennis said he felt subsequent solicitations 
would be much simpler. 

Mr. Bice said another area of discussion had to do 
with the nature of the contract — that is, a maximum amount con- 
tract vs. a fixed price one. Mr. Harrington said the H.M.B. had 
decided this in favor of the fixed price contract. Chairman 



-10- 



P 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Dennis said that things seemed to be at two levels — technical 
matters, such as the length of the contract, which seemed to 
have been resolved, and the policy issues which were yet to be 
resolved, such as Trustee/Staff relationships and the matter of 
affirmative action. Mr. Kaludis said the affirmative action 
matter would be taken care of. The matter of relationships was 
more complex. In his view and in his understanding of the 
operative documents of the Committee, the Audit Committee was at 
the apex of the rather detailed general management organization 
of the University. The audit process should be a tool to rein- 
force management as well as to satisfy the Trustees that all 
was shipshape and to assure them that their fiduciary respon- 
sibility was being exercised. There was a good mix of the two 
interests in the protocols. 

What concerned him, Mr. Kaludis continued, was that 
what should be preserved in the processes relating to the first 
major contract was the notion that the executive had a respon- 
; sibility in terms of audit review and response, and oversight 
I in conjunction with the Audit Committee. He said he viewed the 
| creation of the Committee as a very good thing; however, he did 
not want to see the opportunities and responsibilities of the 
executive reduced. Both the campus and the central administra- 
tion executives should be able to use the audit process in the 
discharge of their functions. He said he had no philosophical 
problem with the Audit Committee being the apex of the organiza- 
tional structure, his aim was to preserve the opportunity for 
executive involvement. 

Chairman Dennis said this indicated a difference in 
interpretation. In the matter of operations vs. policy, audits 
were something that the Board was very much involved in. Unlike 
almost every other function of the University, external auditors 
reported directly to the Board. Obviously, there were many steps 
which had to be taken prior to the auditor's report — soliciting 
bids, getting the work done, etc. etc. , — these steps had to be 
taken by the staff. The protocols were intended to preserve 
the fact that auditors reported to the Board and that it was 
the Board's responsibility to ensure that the work be done. It 
had to be made clear to the external auditors that they were 
working for the Board. 

In the matter of day-by-day operations, Chairman 
Dennis continued, these were staff responsibility. While the 
executives had certain accounting responsibilities, the Chan- 
cellors had been told in no uncertain terms, and the President's 
Office was now being told, that audits were the Board's responsi- 
bility. Trustee Crain said that in his industry he had no con- 
fusion that he was to implement anything related to audits; 
however, the auditors reported to the audit committee of the 



-11- 



Audits 
3/22/78 



Audits 
3/22/78 



board, 
audits 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

This did not reduce his responsibility for responding to 



Mr. Kaludis said that this was a somewhat unique situa- 
tion in that the University does not have one external auditor. 
If there were one auditor, his response would be different. He 
said he was not trying to be an obstructionist, but he was trying 
to preserve the energies of the Trustees. If an external auditor 
were in place, it would be completely different; however, the 
University was in sort of a shotgun situation, with numerous 
audits scattered every which way and some thirty audit firms. 
He said he was trying to use whatever professional talents he 
had to try to fashion a reasonable way to operate. The situation 
was not the same as that of being in the position of being able 
to order a University-wide audit immediately and having the 
auditor deal directly with the Audit Committee. That would be 
reasonable. However, he did not feel the University had yet 
reached that ideal situation. Trustee Crain said he understood 
the point; however, the reasons cited, that the audits would 
sail right by the administrators and that they were not involved 
and did not have to respond, tended to overintellectualize the 
process and were difficult to grasp. Mr. Kaludis said he did 
not think he had said that. Trustee Crain said this was what he 
had heard. The expressed concern that, if the auditors report 
directly to the Board, the administrators would be relieved of 
accountability would not be correct. Mr. Kaludis said what he 
had said was that the executive ought to be able to use the 
audit process to advantage. 

Chairman Dennis said he sometimes felt that staff didn' : 
want to air their dirty laundry and wanted to clean it up before 
it got to the Board. The point the Trustees had been trying to 
make from the beginning was that they were aware that there were 
problems. In the case of audits, it was understood that staff 
would have to use the management letter as a corrective tool. 
This could be done within the process decided on by the Board. 
Also, staff would have input in determining the scope of the 
audit. The problem or issue being discussed was that of to whom 
the auditors were reporting. They were reporting to the Board. 
Trustee Crain said that some of the emotion that had been 
generated by this issue stemmed from his experience in trying to 
see audit materials and responses. This experience had extended 
over the sixteen months he had been on the Board and had been 
incredible. Particularly galling was the fact that as a Trustee 
he was liable if actionable mistakes occurred. Chairman Dennis 
said it was in response to this that the Board had formed the 
Audit Committee. He said he understood the line between opera- 
tions and policy, however, in the area of audits he was unwilling 
to give up the Board's prerogative. It was the common and tradi- 
tional that auditors reported to the Board. 

Mr. Kaludis said he understood the Trustees position 
and would adhere to it. He noted that there was a vote to be 
dealt with. He asked the Committee to approve the original 
Worcester draft request for proposal, modified as had been agreed 
to. Chairman Dennis asked what the time schedule for the pro 

-12- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



posal was. Mr. Harrington said it was very tight. The requests 
were to be distributed March 24, a proposal conference to be held 
on April 3, and proposals to be received April 17. The schedule 
would probably have to be re-worked. Chairman Dennis noted that 
normally firms were given thirty days in which to respond. Small 
firms would find it difficult to meet such a tight schedule. 
Mr. Harrington said he had been criticized for allowing too much 
time. Chairman Dennis disagreed, noting that this was a major 
proposal. He suggested that firms be allowed at least thirty 
days in which to respond. Mr. Harrington said the audit was to 
cover FY 1978, which ended June 30, 1978, and his goal had been 
to decide on a firm by June 1, so that the firm could begin any 
interim work it wished to do. In response to Chairman Dennis' 
question he said he would have no problem with extending the 
response period to thirty days. 



After a brief discussion the Committee agreed that 
Chairman Dennis and Mr. Kaludis would modify the draft request fo: - 
proposal. It was then moved, seconded, and 

VOTED : To approve the scope of the proposed audit of the 
University Hospital and Group Practice Plan for 
FY 1979 as proposed by Chancellor Bulger. 

In the matter of Progress Report on Search for Director 
of Auditing , Mr. Kaludis said the fold of applicants had been 
narrowed to six and it was expected that the two or three final- 
ists would meet with the Committee. Chairman Dennis said the 
responses to the State Audit at UM/Boston and the Peat, Marwick, 
Mitchell audits at Amherst would be dealt with at the next meeting 



Audits 
3/22/78 



Progress Report 
on Search for 
Director of 
Auditing 



There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. 




Dorothy Eicflfel 

Assistant Secretary to the 

Board of Trustees 



-13- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



! 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON LONG-RANGE PLANNING 

March 22, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Marks; President 
Patterson; Trustees Baker, Kassler, Popko , Sawtelle and Troy; Mr. 
Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Robertson 

Other Trustees: Trustee Batiste 



Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/ Amherst: Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 



Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Professors Martin and 
Schwartz, Faculty Representatives 

UM/Worcester : Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 



Guests : Mr. 0' Sullivan, Student Trustee Elect, UM/Boston; Mses. 
Fit zpa trick and Weiss, Mr. Olson, Members of the Students United 
for Public Education, UM/Amherst 

The meeting came to order at 10:47 a.m. Chairman Marks 
introduced Mses. Fitzpatrick and Weiss and Mr. Olson, who had 
asked to make a Presentation by Students United for Public Educa- 
tion to the Committee. Ms. Fitzpatrick made the following state- 



ment : 

"Students United for Public Education consists of a 
diverse body of students from the University of Massachusetss, 
Amherst and Westfield State College campuses. We are alarmed at 
the current attempts to reduce the quality of public higher educa- 
tion in this state. . We are committed to a state-wide campaign 
of educating and organizing all students around those issues 
which affect our education. Through petitions, educational work- 
shops, editorials and hearings before administrators and legisla- 
tors, Students United for Public Education disseminates current 
information to students on the plight of public higher education. 

"Our program is as follows: no budget cuts; no tuition 
increases; no public monies to private schools; and 'no' to the 
Parks plan for reorganization and any plan like it. 



Presentation 
of Students 
United for 
Public 
Education 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

"That the quality of our institutions is being 
threatened, there can be no doubt. The present chancellor of the 
state Board of Higher Education, Leroy Keith, recently termed the 
governor's budget recommendations a disaster. He called the 
recommendations, ... 'of such disastrous proportions that, if 
enacted in that form, there will be a slide in the quality of 
higher education in the Commonwealth. ' 

"Students are being told that the fiscal crisis of the 
state precipitates a need for reduced expenditures on public 
higher education in the form of cutbacks, reorganization and 
reallocation of resources. Public college students are being 
told to be 'realistic' in their aspirations and goals and to 
structure those goals within the trend towards vocationalization 
and the needs of the changing job market. 

"In line with this new realism, our top administrators 
are now advocating efficiency as the policy guidelines instead of 
quality, whereby students are consumers who purchase basic skills 
and career training. We reject this criterion for the adminis- 
tration of education. We, as citizens, have a right to quality 
education. An education which working class and middle class 
parents provided through their tax dollars, in order to guarantee 
educational access for their children. With the current budget 
proposal, we would witness the fifth straight year in which the 
higher educational segment of the budget diminished in its percen 
tage of the total state budget. And according to Keith, the 
current proposal won't even sustain educational programs at their 
present level. This lack of support is further underscored by 
the fact that in two years alone the state has slipped from 28th 
to 48th in money spent per student in higher education. 

"We are alarmed at this trend for its points toward a 
weakened commitment on the part of the state to insure quality 
public higher education for its citizens. Historically, the 
commitment was witnessed by the growth of the state college and 
university system to one of excellence; the University of Massa- 
chusetts, Amherst in particular being comparable to any quality 
public university in the country. That this commitment should 
remain, even in the face of fiscal constraints, is imperative 
for it is the only place where the children of working people 
have affordable access to a quality education. 

"And that is why we have come to speak before you today 
We demand more from an education than simply getting a job. We 
expect an education which gives us the tools needed for critical 
thinking, those tools which help us to understand and evaluate 
the world around us. The education we need can only be obtained 
through a continuation of the commitment to quality which was 



-2- 



1 



1 



< 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

made to us in the past. As our administrators, you are respon- 
sible for the interests of public university students. We are 
therefore seeking your support in insuring that the commitment 
made to us is carried through." 

Ms. Weiss said the Trustees should know that the stu- 
dents at the meeting had interrupted their vacations and had come 
from all over Massachusetts and from out of state. This was an 
indication of the seriousness of their concern. She then made 
the following statement: 

11 'When money is tight and budgets must be cut, painful 
choices must be made. ' This is a quote from the Parks Plan for 
the Reorganization of Public Higher Education. It reflects a very 
dangerous and frightening trend in our society, a trend rolling us 
backward instead of forward. I am referring to the reneging of 
our government — whether federal, state, or local — on its commit- 
ment to provide comprehensive social service to the taxpayers 
and working people of the society. Across the country, budgets 
for public hospitals, public transportation and public education 
are being slashed. City school children are being asked to attenc 
school for only half a day while bond holders are paid off. In 
New York City, public hospitals are asked to accept budget cuts 
while millions of dollars in state and federal aid go to private 
schools in Massachusetts and throughout the nation. Yes, these 
are very painful choices — but they are more painful to the victims 
than the choosers. However, these are choices, and that indicates 
that there are alternative solutions to the fiscal crisis. Stu- 
dents United for Public Education is here today to ask that you, 
the Board of Trustees, continue to maintain our government's 
commitment to excellent public higher education. We are asking 
you to carefully consider alternatives to the destruction of 
public education in Massachusetts. 

"Specifically, in Massachusetts, the public university 
system is slated for a major reorganization, which, given the 
historical and economic context, can only mean the demise of 
public education as we know it. Representatives of the private 
university system call for increased government aid as they also 
lobby for increases in the tuition of the public universities so 
that we may remain competitive with private universities. Governo 
Dukakis calls for belt tightening and budget cutting. Robert Wood 
had consistently supported the type of reorganization which would 
take into account the needs of the private schools. Both guber- 
natorial candidates challenging Governor Dukakis have called for 
increased aid to private colleges and universities. Secretary of 
Education, Paul Parks, and Assistant Secretary, Joan Pinck, call 
for 'more effective resource usage' in this period of 'no growth. ' 
Surely, reorganization of public higher education in Massachusetts 
will be a method of continuing the budget cutting process while 
reorienting the direction of public education to meet the needs 
of the private university system. 



-3- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



"For the past three years, the UMass budget appropriation 
has been $4-$14 million shy of the original request, without 
taking into account the effects of inflation. Yet, in the face 
of these cuts, we have overcrowded classes; at UMass many students 
are closed out of the courses which they need to complete their 
major and this year, as you probably know, over 100 freshman 
had to be housed temporarily in the Campus Center Hotel and other 
areas because there were not enough rooms for them. Incidentally, 
the recent audit of the UMass housing system recommends that close 
to $4 million will be necessary just to make the dorms livable. 

"In essence, the demand for public education has not 
fallen off , it is the demand for private education which has 
lessened! When citizens of the Commonwealth know that they can 
have excellent education at the public universities for far less 
money than at the private schools, then of course they're going to 
desert the private system. Yet public monies continue to support 
private education. State and federal tax dollars go to private 
schools in the form of cost of education supplements to students 
already holding federal grants, general purpose grants based on 
enrollment, financial aid to students, grants for specific pro- 
grams (as medical or dental schools) , tax exempt bonds or con- 
struction grants. In 1974, an amendment to the state constitution 
was passed which permits direct aid to private schools. This 
opened the door to millions of dollars going to private univer- 
sities in the form of matching funds. 

"Given all of this there is no one who can tell us that 
there is no money and no basis for expanding and supporting public 
education. No one can tell us to be 'realistic' when we see such 
'unrealistic' decisions being made. We see the government bailing 
out the private schools at the expense of the public university 
system and the working people of Massachusetts, who, for the most 
part, could not afford to send their children to private schools. 
Financial aid to private schools is no solution because of the 
very limited coverage that it can provide. Only a few chosen 
students can make it on this route. The only solution, the alter- 
native which we are suggesting, which is far less 'painful', is 
full funding of the public university system. No public money 
to private universities and colleges. If the private universities 
want public funds, then let them truly open their doors to the 
public . 

"The proposed reorganization of higher education takes 
on a new meaning once it is understood that the trend in Massachu- 
setts is to halt growth at the public universities while the 
government continues to aid expansion in the private schools. The 
type of reorganization proposed by Paul Parks calls for an end to 
duplication within the public school system. This means that the 
public colleges and university system will be asked to 'regroup' 
their existing resources and to operate on the basis of no growth 
It is from this assumption that all else follows. Beyond this 



-4- 



I 



i 



I 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



static prescription, the Parks Plan calls for public higher 
education to align itself more closely with the needs of business. 
Therefore, not only will public education be cut back, but its 
purposes and direction are to be changed. The picture is all too 
clear; when government budgets are tight, the already existent 
gap between private and public education will be widened. The 
public universities and colleges will become technical training 
institutes while the private schools will be the places which 
teach people how to think. Ironically, last month, Harvard 
College decided to reorganize its undergraduate curriculum to in- 
clude a new emphasis on "basics" — required courses in literature, 
the arts, history, social and philosophical analysis, science and 
math, foreign language and culture. It is precisely these areas 
that are being jeopardized at the public universities because we 
are being told that they are no longer relevant or realistic for 
the current job market.' What kind of jobs are the students of the 
public schools being trained for? 

"Really, the Parks Plan reveals a vision of the public 
colleges and universities which has them unable to compete with 
the private schools because the high quality of public education 
will be destroyed. This is exactly what happened at the City 
University of New York, which, since the 19th century, had a 
national reputation for providing excellent public higher education 
with no tuition. After WW II, as public education expanded in 
New York City, the City University drew students that might have 
otherwise attended some of the private schools. In response, the 
private schools lobbied for cuts in public education and for 
various forms of indirect aid to private universities. Unfortun- 
ately, in the end, the needs of the private schools prevailed. In 
the heated climate of the New York City budgetary crises, the city 
government yielded to the pressures of the banks and the private 
schools by imposing tuition at the City University and by making 
tremendous budget cuts there too. I witnessed, in four short 
years, the beginning of the collapse of the City University. 



"But this was not inevitable. There were alternatives 
all along the way. This is the issue we are raising with you 
today. The City University system lost the last battle, in part, 
because its own administration and the Board of Higher Education 
capitulated. They did not fight back and organize with students 
as they had in the past. At one point, the presidents of Brooklyn 
and Queens colleges refused to implement the budget cuts. The 
administration of C.C.N.Y. paid for buses to send students to 
Albany where they could speak to their legislators about tuition 
and budget cuts. In other words, the administrators fought for 
the interests of the public university system. They understood 
their primary responsibility as one of preserving the public 
schools instead of aiding in the plans for their destruction. 
This is what we are asking of you, the Long- Range Planning Commit- 
tee, today. We ask that you too say, 'No to Budget Cuts,' 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



-5- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

'No to Tuition Increases,' 'No to Public Money to Private Schools, 
and we ask that you join us in our campaign to save the public 
colleges and universities. As the first step, we ask that you 
support our request for an open hearing of the whole Board of 
Trustees at the UM/ Amherst Campus on April 5 to allow students 
to express their views on these issues." 

Mr. Olson then made the following statement. 

"We have come here today to make four basic specific 
requests from your committee. First, we would like the Long-Range 
Planning Committee to adopt, support, and actively represent our 
program. We would like you to represent our program to the full 
Board of Trustees to familiarize them with it, and also when the 
Board of Trustees represents our interests to the State legisla- 
ture. 

"We strongly believe that our program is synonomous witii 
quality public higher education. Our definition of quality 
education goes far beyond the narrow confines of a cost/benefit 
approach that is embodied in the Parks' Plan. Our program, if 
followed, will clearly promote and sustain an educational environ- 
ment that will create people who will make a productive and 
critical contribution to society. This is the true purpose of 
public education. 



"Our second request is for an open meeting with the 
Board of Trustees at the UM/Amherst campus on April 5, 1978. The 
purpose of this meeting is to ensure that responsible and interested 
students, terribly concerned with the declining quality of education 
in this state, can make known their needs, their ideas, and their 
recommendations for the form and content of our education. 

"The Board of Trustees, as our administrative body, 
has the responsibility and obligation to have an open meeting 
with the student body for the purpose of direct communication. 
This forum is the most direct method of exchanging information, 
and should be made available to the students at least once a 
semester. 



"The Board of Trustees will soon be making important 
decisions concerning the shape and direction of our education. 
To be consistent with our democratic society, decisions affecting 
public institutions should not be made behind closed doors. We 
want to play a role in determining the direction of our education 
its form, and its content. In order to play a responsible role, 
we need access to information. 

"Our third request is for the Long-Range Planning 
Committee to share its information, its staff material, and works 
in progress with the public, with interested students at UMass anfl 
with our group. To help ensure a democratic process, and meaning- 
ful input, we need to know what is developing, how long it is 
developing, and why it is developing. The only way we can make ah 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

informed contribution is to have access to the necessary and im- 
portant materials that your committee uses. 

"Our fourth request is for specific information concern- 
ing the fate of the Master Plan for UM/ Amherst, UM/Boston, and 
UM/Worcester . Specifically, does one still exist, and if so is 
the time-table proposal last spring still relevant? 

"In conclusion, we would like to emphasize again how 
we perceive your role in the future of public education in this 
state. This committee, and especially the entire Board of 
Trustees, plays a crucial role in the future of many students edu- 
cation in this state. In other words you have alot of power in 
the determination of state spending policies. The conclusions 
are not inevitable — the outcomes depend in part on you position 
and how strong you are willing to fight. Your responsibility 
clearly lies in an active defense of public education and a con- 
cerned effort to restore the recent damage that has been done. 
If you shirk this responsibility, you will not only have to live 
with the knowledge of your direct contribution to the destruction 
of public education, but also you will have to deal with the re- 
actions of dissatisfied students who disagree with your lack of 
support for quality public education. We urge you to take the 
stance that your very position on this Board mandates — an active 
and aggressive role in favor of our program. 

"Our group has the support of many recognized Student 
Organizations, who support the open meeting; we have also obtained 
over one thousand signatures of students who directly support our 
program; actually it is everyone's program. The following R.S.O. 
groups support our stand : 

Veterans Service Organization, 

Student Legal Services, 

United Christian Foundation, 

Young Socialist Alliance, 

Student Government Association Presidents, 

Graduate Students Employees Union, 

Boltwood Belchertown Project, 

Undergraduate Economic Council, 

Butterfield Arts Group, 

Revolutionary Students Brigade, 

Union of Political Economists and Social Theorists, 

Committee for Student Run Towing Service." 

Chairman Marks thanked the students for their thoughtful 
and very fine presentation and for taking the time to meet with 
the Committee. Their concerns would receive the attention of the 
Trustees. He stressed that it was not the intention of the Board 
of Trustees or of any of its committees to preside over the demise 
of either the University or of public higher education. The 
Board's concerns and goals paralled many of those of the students. 



-7- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The University and the Trustees were aware of the trends running 
counter to the best interests of public higher education and 
would be very vigorous in attempting to reverse these trends and 
to retain and enhance quality education at the University. There 
were many things in the presentation with which he agreed vigor- 
ousely. While he took exception to a few of the statements made, 
he would be only too willing to discuss them. 

As to the request to appear before the Board, Chairman 
Marks continued, the Committee would have to address this and 
would give the students a swift response. President Patterson 
said that it would not be possible to shift the April 5 meeting 
of the Board from Boston to Amherst because of lack of time. As 
to the presence or absence of a master plan, this was the next 
item on the meeting's agenda. 

President Patterson said he seconded the Chairman's 
remarks. The presentation was very well done and had been put 
forth in a rational and straight forward manner. President 
Patterson said that it should be noted that the administration wa$ 
presently doing battle for the defense of the resources necessary 
for the University. Yesterday, at a hearing before the House 
Ways and Means Committee, representatives from the University 
had defended the budgets proposed by Amherst, Boston and Worcester 
against the basic cuts contained in House I, the Governor's bud- 
get proposal. These efforts would continue in the coming weeks 
by making further representations to the House and Senate Ways 
and Means Committees. The budget proposed by the University re- 
flected in a practical way the concern for quality which the 
students obviously shared. 

He said he did not wish to suggest actions which Stu- 
dents United for Public Education should take; however, since 
the Legislature had the power to decide on the final budget, 
S.U.P.E. might want to consider making a representation to that 
body. All documents available to the Long-Range Planning Com- 
mittee could be made available to the students. While it would 
be impossible to supply documents in multiple copies, the Sec- 
retary's Office would be happy to supply the information requested 

Trustee Troy said he was most pleased to hear the focus 
on quality in public higher education. His own view, one that he 
had defended for many years, was that public higher education 
must be as good as the very best of private higher education, 
and better than most. 

Chairman Marks said that as the reconstituted Long- 
Range Planning Committee got under way and as Board approval was 
received, the Committee would develop action plans, some of which 
would address many of the suggestions of the students. In order 
for the Committee to operate effectively, it would be necessary 
for it to work with all the constituent bodies of the University. 



-8- 



i 



i 



! 



1 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

It should be realized, he continued, that the Committee 
was in the formulation stage and if at this stage members and 
groups of the University were to engage in a gun fight, the ene- 
mies of public higher education would be delighted. As the long- 
range plan and its implementation were beind discussed and formed, 
it would be most constructive if all interested would coordinate 
their efforts. Everyone would have access to documents and in- 
formation. When the action plans, for example, on reorganization 
of public higher education were available, the University should 
articulate its needs and recommendations in a coordinated fashion. 
His own experience in attempting to achieve goals for the Univer- 
sity, whether it was changing the name of the institution from 
Massachusetts State College to the University of Massachusetts 
or in seeking fiscal autonomy, had convinced him that such efforts 
only succeeded when people agreed on general principles. It would 
be impossible to develop an action plan in which every part would 
satisfy everyone. Given a plan which would be acceptable to most 
of the parties, the University then could move forward on a broad 
front with maximum flexibility and achieve a great deal. 

Trustee Kassler said he did not thing that greater 
funding was necessarily synonymous with greater quality. The 
word "efficiency" should not be interpreted as a code word for 
diminuation of quality. He urged students not to fall into the 
easy trap of saying that because the Governor/Legislature were 
lopping off X dollars this means that the University's educational 
program would be diminished. In going to the Legislature it was 
imperative to identify the budget cuts and to pinpoint how they 
would directly affect the educational program; if one generalized 
about the effect of cuts, the legislators would see this as an 
effort to get the maximum number of dollars possible. He said 
the Board was committed to the preservation and enhancement of 
public higher education and would fight any budget cuts which ran 
counter to this commitment. 

Ms. Weiss said her group would have no difficulty in 
identifying areas where budget cuts had affected the quality of 
education at the University. Three or four years ago a number of 
academic departments had issued studies showing in great detail 
the effect of budget cuts on their programs. Also, there was 
another trap — that of using examples of wastage in the Univer- 
sity's non-academic departments as a justification for discount- 
ing the need for more funds. 

The students, Ms. Weiss continued, did not see it as 
their job to be the major researchers and investigators in this 
matter. This was the job of the Trustees and their staff. The 
students saw their job as that of being responsible, organized 
students fighting for the needs of a public university system. 
Because there was an obvious general trend operating to the 
detriment of public higher education, the students saw no need on 
their part to point out each and every individual need. 



-9- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



Committee 
Procedures , 
Operation 
and Future 
Agenda 
Items 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chairman Marks said 
approach as opposed to Trustee 
two were not incompatible and 
Ms. Weiss was acceptable. He 
they would agree to make their 
the May 3, meeting at Amherst, 
mittee if it agreed to his rec 
Board that the students be all 
meeting. The Committee agreed 



this could be te 

Kassler's rifle 

the division of 

then asked the s 

presentation to 

They did. He 

ommending to the 

owed to make a p 



rmed a shotgun 
approach. The 

labor suggested by 

tudents present if 
the full Board at 

then asked the Com- 
Chairman of the 

resentation to the 



The meeting then discussed Committee Procedures, Oper- 
ation and Future Agenda Items . Chairman Marks said he would open 
what hopefully would be long and friendly discussion by explain- 
ing why the Committee had been dormant for so long and then would 
give his ideas on how best the Committee might get back to work. 

The approach to Long-Range Planning, he said, had a 
history of starts and stops and stops and starts. For example, 
the Committee had been at a virtual standstill for some months; 
on the other hand there had been a good deal of planning activity 
at the campus level. Much of what was being produced on campus 
would be very useful to the final deliberations of the Committee. 
At the risk of being somewhat simplistic, it could be said that 
the previous joint Trustee/Central Administration/Campus approach 
had been pointed towards a very wide and deep articulated plan. 
This plan isolated and identified all of the many trends the 
University was subjected to, and also had the expectation that 
the solutions to all of the major problems, most of the medium 
sized ones, and many of the little ones, could be identified and 
isolated, and could be agreed to by all concerned. This process 
could work, and in some cases had worked to some degree but only 
after a massive effort lasting some ten or fifteen years. 

Chairman Marks said it was his belief that such an 
approach was a dangerous one. Deliberations could go on forever 
and one never was able to get all the horses lined up at one time 
in order to start. All the while this was going on, serious prob 
lems were begging for solution at the policy level. The Board 
never got around to rendering a judgement, and the work of the 
University suffered. He suggested that a more useful though less 
glamorous approach would be to attack the problems one by one, 
and slowly clear up the plague of unmet policy decisions. 

With than in mind, there were several things that could 
be put on the Committee's plate. One such matter would be the 
reorganization of public higher education. The University could 
come up with the most masterful master plan ever only to see it 
totally negated by reorganization. Therefore the Committee, 
acting initially on behalf of the Board, would have to define the 
meaning of reorganization and how this would square with the 
Trustees' conception of the University. Any proposed reorganiza- 
tion would have to be analyzed to determine its effect on the 
University as an institution and its effect on the University's 



-10- 



■ 



■ 



« 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

academic mission. In sum, the Trustees and the University should 
be in a position to influence the quality, scope and direction 
of any plan for reorganization. 

Another matter which the Board had yet to address was 
that of the missions of UM/Boston. Many decisions at Boston had 
been delayed for a long time; for example, the scope and quality 
of the graduate program. The time had now come to give thought- 
ful consideration to the materials prepared by the campus on this 
subject and to have the Board reach a decision. Again, the de- 
cision might be one which would not be acceptable in all of its 
parts to everyone; however, at least the Chancellor and the cam- 
pus would have a clearer understanding of the Board's conception 
of what the missions of the University were. 

Chairman Marks said the Committee was beginning with a 
fresh start. The motion was to do some policy problems solving, 
beginning with the major ones, with others always currently await- 
ing action. When the major problems were resolved, the Committee 
would then address the issue of a more symmetrical model of the 
University as a whole. He concluded by noting that if this plan 
of attack were agreeable to the Committee, it would then have to 
be approved by the Board. Hopefully, it would be agreeable to 
the administration and faculty. 



Professor Schwartz said he agreed with this. However, 
the Board in seeking input and advice should be sensitive to 
getting these from the proper constituencies. If the Board were 
to do this, when it came to a decision at least some sort of con- 
sensus could be reached on the campus. Not everyone would be 
happy with the decisions, but it would be a better situation than 
the present one. While the Trustees Long-Range Planning Commit- 
tee may have fallen dormant, some of its stimuli continued to 
operate. For example, the Boston Long-Range Planning Committee 
continued to function. It was his understanding that the Commit- 
tee would soon be in a position to provide input on some of the 
problems just mentioned. In other words, mechanisms were in 
place and functioning which would give the Trustees appropriate 
ideas and feedback from the campuses without having to wait an 
inordinate amount of time. He urged the Trustees to utilize 
these mechanisms. 

Chairman Marks said that implicit in all this was that 
the planning procedure would not work unless such a process were 
followed. The Committee would move forward vigorously in its 
work but would not be assertive or dogmatic in assessing anyone's 
point of view. As had been stated, the decisions that came from 
this process might not be universally acceptable, but they would 
be preferable to an endless debate and no decision at all. All 
constituents had learned some organizational lessons from the 
planning process over the past few years. If resolution were to 
be achieved, all constituents would have to relax somewhat and 
not approach any matter in a dogmatic fashion. 

-11- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Kassler said that he had a question which re- 
lated very closely to the nature of the input being sought. The 
question was how the Trustees perceived their role with regard 
to details. For example, in defining the mission of the Boston 
campus would the Committee go into faculty staffing of particu- 
lar departments? While the answer to this would certainly be an 
emphatic and very loud "no," it was important that faculty and 
staff understand what the Trustees saw as their cut-off level, 
below which, once a framework was established by the Board, the 
campuses would make decisions. 

Chairman Marks said that possibly this could be an- 
swered by unofficially changing the Committee's title to the 
Committee on Long-Range Policy Planning. Part of the problem 
in the past had been that the Trustees had indeed done an in- 
justice to the campuses by getting down to the level of opera- 
tional decisions. A level at which the Trustees had little or 
no experience. If the Trustees were to discharge their respnsi- 
bility of making policy decisions, the rest of the operation 
should take care of itself. These lines had become blurred and 
operations details had become the subject of arguments and were 
somehow turned into policy matters. 

President Patterson said he was grateful for the Trustee 
leadership with regard to planning issues and with Chairman Mark's 
procedures for reactivating the Committee. He was absolutely 
right in suggesting that planning issues be approached pragmati- 
cally. There were some basic issues which needed to be resolved 
by the Board so that resources could be allocated responsibly, 
after which other long-range planning items could receive atten- 
tion. 

Also, President Patterson continued, he subscribed to 
Professor Schwartz's cautions. One major problem at UM/Boston in 
the past had been that the apparatus became so cumbersome that 
it was difficult to stay within any sort of reasonable time frame . 
He said he was encouraged not only by the Committee's determina- 
tion, but also by Chancellor Van Ummer sen's grasp of the need to 
solve this problem, which she had expressed even before her 
appointment. Given changed attitudes and processes, there was 
every prospect that each of the campuses and the Board would move 
ahead and achieve productive planning. 

Trustee Troy said he felt the campuses should be assurec 
and reassured that the Trustees would take very seriously the re- 
ports and recommendations made by the campus committees. He said 
it would be helpful to know the scope and range of the work com- 
mittees were doing and when the results of this work would be 
available. He concluded by noting that plans could not be imposec 
from above; there had to be input from the campuses. 



-12- 



I 



» 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor Martin, speaking as Chairman of the Boston 
Long-Range Planning Committee, said the Committee's intention was 
to provide the Trustees with statements regarding missions, goals 
and priorities. The statements would represent a broad consensus 
of the campuses. Chancellor Van Ummersen said she expected to 
have the statements delivered to the President's Office in the 
first week of April. Chairman Marks said he wished to establish 
a ground rule. Everyone would try to get materials to the Com- 
mittee as early as possible prior to a meeting. Trustee Kassler 
said the Trustees needed time in order to judge proposals. 

Professor Smith said she chaired the Long-Range Plann- 
ing Committee at the Medical School. One thing which would 
greatly aid the Committee in its deliberations was that the 
School was in the midst of an in-depth accreditation study. A 
spin-off of this study would be the accumulation of a large base 
of data. Efforts were now underway to coordinate the work of 
the Committee and the study, and of the many sub-committees which 
were studying every aspect of the Medical School. These many 
studies would result in a solid factual basis for long-range 
planning. 

Mr. Allen said he could report that the Amherst campus 
was moving at a more stately pace. The Faculty Senate was now 
setting up a committee to deal with planning issues. As use of 
the phrase "long-range planning" was no longer permitted on the 
Amherst campus, the committee would be called the Committee on 
Priorities. Movement, while stately, was of a very healthy kind. 

There then ensued a brief discussion on the matter of 
the planning procedures at Amherst, centering on student input 
into the procedures. President Patterson said two things about 
the discussion concerned him. One was that the discussion was 
about campus prerogatives; that is, matters which the campus 
should settle. It would be unfortunate if the Trustees got into 
this area. 

Secondly, President Patterson said, there was one dan- 
ger which he hoped the Committee wouldn't tread too close to — 
that of getting into the morass of what kind of governance is 
best. In his judgement, this was at least partly the reason why 
the Trustees were where they were with regard to the missions of 
the Boston campus. The campus had never really been able to "get 
its act together" because it had spent so much time in an elabor- 
ate discussion of governance. He urged the Committee not to be- 
come involved in campus matters and not to become involved in 
governance matters in great detail. 

Chairman Marks said that the Committee should operate 
on the already stated principle that anything which could be re- 
solved at the campus level should be resolved at the campus level. 



-13- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Returning to the subject of Committee procedures, 
Trustee Troy said he was having trouble envisioning how the Com- 
mittee's work would mesh with that of other committees. For ex- 
ample, presumably the expected statements from UM/Boston would 
contain some reference to graduate study. This would be of con- 
cern to the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee as well as 
to the Long-Range Planning Committee. How would this be sorted 
out so that the two Committee chairmen would not bring conflict- 
ing reports or recommendations to the Board. Trustee Popko said 
she too had questioned the possibility of two committees discuss- 
ing the same materials. Chairman Marks said that Mr. Lynton 
would be in a position to monitor this and to offer direction in 
this regard. Mr. Lynton said that overlapping committee member- 
ships would forestall conflicts to some extent. Also, some major 
issues would go to more than one committee, each of which would 
approach the issues from a different perspective. 

Chairman Marks said that a further correction would come 
from the style with which Committee members presented materials 
to their fellow Trustees. He said he believed that the Committee 
members, including himself, would discuss matters with other 
Trustees as they developed rather than when they were decided. 
The latter method had in the past led committees to putting a 
great deal of work into developing a proposal and then springing 
it on the Board as a whole. The committees' efforts came to 
naught because the other Trustees did not have time to give due 
consideration to the matter. 

In the immediate future, Chairman Marks continued, the 
Committee would receive at its next meeting its first major input 
from UM/Boston 's statements on missions and goals and priorities. 
Next would be statements from UM/Amherst, and then the Committee 
would receive at least a partial report from the Medical School. 
In the matter of reorganization of public higher education, Chair 
man Healey had asked that the Committee on Long-Range Planning 
serve as the official representative of the Board of Trustees in 
the whole matter of reorganization. Thus the committee would 
have to develop a strategy and an approach in order to act up to 
a point. As always, policy statements would require full Board 
approval. 

A possible approach for the Committee, Chairman Marks 
continued, would be based on the assumptions that the Legislative 
Commission on Reorganization would operate in a relatively open 
fashion and would be generally receptive to the views of the seg- 
ments of public higher education. Given these assumptions, the 
Presidents and the Trustees of the several segments could begin 
on an informal basis to develop proposals for reorganization 
which would speak to the missions and resources of the segments. 
Since the Commission would probably not become active for some 
months, this time could be used to apprise President Patterson 
of options and procedures; he in turn could work with the other 



-14- 



i 



! 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Presidents. Similar actions could take place at the Trustee 
level. This was not to be seen as an attempt to obstruct the 
work of the Commission, rather it was an attempt to help them. 

President Patterson said that because of his long in- 
volvement with reorganization, his position in this matter was a 
very active one. He had served on the Willis-Harrington Commis- 
sion. The Commission's recommendations had had greater impact on 
the governance of education as a whole and on the governance of 
higher education in particular than those of any other body over 
the last ten years. The recommendations now needed to be re- 
viewed and changed and, where necessary, redrawn. Also, for the 
last eight years he had been pressing for consideration of prob- 
lems of reorganization. For these reasons he felt he should play 
an active role. He intended not to be simply the spokesman for 
the Trustees' decision, but to help the Trustees think about what 
they might want to decide. 

On March 27, President Patterson continued, he had 
arranged to meet with the heads of the State and Community College 
systems and the Presidents of Southeastern Massachusetts and 
Lowell Universities. On March 28, the heads of all the state in- i 
stutitions would meet. At these meetings what was happening 
within the state and in other states would be discussed. In this 
process the University was being looked to as an agency of leader- 
ship in helping the community of public education think about 
what the best form of reorganization might be. This was going to 
be a complicated matter because the Trustees had the ultimate 
judgement as to what the University's responses would be. His 
position was a delicate one — because of his experience he felt 
he should contribute; further, as President of the University he 
felt he had an opportunity and responsibility to play a shaping 
part in these deliberations. While so doing he had to be sure 
that he was not out of line with what the Trustees suggested — 
that, in addition to discussions at the presidential level, there 
be a parallel Trustee involvement. This would have to be a har- 
monious approach so that one level did not get too far ahead 
of the other. While this was ultimately a policy matter, thus a 
responsibility of each of the boards, on a practical level the 
jchief executives had a very important part to play. 

Trustee Troy asked how long the exploratory phase by 
the segment executives would last. President Patterson said that 
this would be a problem, but one which could be dealt with. It 
would be a problem because several of the other segments were 
worried about what final form the reorganization would take. The 
ambiguity of this situation would lead to a natural result — some 
people would want to agree to some new configuration that would 
give them security. There was also a feeling that things would 
drift along until suddenly, in 1979, reorganization would be im- 
posed without too much input from the segments. There would be a 

-15- 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



L-RP 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

tendency among some of the segments to come to a decision too 
quickly. Chairman Marks said this was why it was important for 
the University to begin shaping its position now. If the Univer- 
sity and the other segments could come to some agreement on mis- 
sions and allocations of resources, this would help the Legisla- 
tive Commission to make its recommendations. 

Professor Schwartz said that certain faculty associa- 
tions had made their views known to earlier commissions on re- 
organization. He felt that some arrangements should be made to 
insure faculty input in the deliberations of the latest commis- 
sion, and that this should not go directly to the commission but 
should be channeled through the University. Chairman Marks said 
this would have to be part of the process. He suggested that in 
the opening phases things should be done on a tentative basis. 
For example, one heard that one university was intransigent on 
almost every issue. This might or might not be true. Impres- 
sions of the attitudes of other segments could also be incorrect. 
It was necessary now to get quickly some notion at the Trustee 
and chief executive levels of the five segments as to the degree 
of cooperation that could be expected. 

Trustee Kassler said involvement at the presential 
level had begun. He asked how and when Trustee involvement would 
begin. Chairman Marks said he had learned that some Trustees of 
the other segments would be quite willing to meet and chat with 
him on an informal basis. He asked that the Committee authorize 
him to follow up on this and to report back to the Committee. 
The Committee agreed that this would be helpful. At the sugges- 
tion of President Patterson it was agreed that at the next meeting 
he would report on his discussions and Chairman Marks would re- 
port on his. 

There was no further business to come before the commit-- 
tee and the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. 

)hn F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary 
of the University 




-16- 



I 



i 



! 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
STUDENT AFFAIRS 



March 22, 1978; 1:00 p.m. 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Shearer; Trustees Baker, 
Batiste and Kassler; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Anrig, McNeil and Okin 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Bondy, 
Assistant Vice President for University Relations; Ms. Hanson, 
Budget Director and Associate Vice President; Ms. Rosen, Associ- 
ate Counsel; Ms. Simmons, Assistant Vice President for Academic 
Affairs 

> 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; 
Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budget and Institutional Studies;! 
Mr. Segar, Coordinator, University Child Care System; Mr. Phillip 
Graduate Student Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor 
for Student Affairs; Ms. Amadon, Director, Special Support 
Services; Ms. Kelley, Director, Child Care Center 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Controller; Mr. Thompson, Associate 
Vice Chancellor for Community Planning; Dr. Eckhert , Assistant 
Dean for Admissions; Ms. Rosen, Consultant for Day Care; 
Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting was called to order at 1:13 p.m. by 
Chairman Shearer, who said that in order to accommodate the late 
arrival of personnel who would be speaking on the UM/Worcester 
proposal on child care, the UM/ Amherst and UM/Boston reports 
would be heard first. She then called on Ms. Simmons to intro- 
duce the first agenda item, Reports on Child Care . Ms. Simmons 
said that in October, 1977, the Committee had heard reports on 
the child care programs of the campuses and at that time had 
raised several questions. In response to these questions, 
additional information had since been prepared and circulated to 
the Committee on the following: 

1) the existing staff services available to the 
child care programs, 

2) the interfacing between the academic depart- 
ments and the child care programs, 



s, 



Reports on 
Child Care 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



UM/Amherst- 
Report on 
Child Care 






UM/ Bos ton- 
Report on 
Child Care 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

3) the establishment of a liaison between the 
central administration and the child care 
programs, and 

4) the administrative services available with 
regard to grantsmanship. 

She said that although the child care services must be viewed 
in the context of the needs of each campus, it was important for 
the Committee on Student Affairs to know what the total available 
resources for such programs were. Ms. Simmons then asked Mr. 
Segar to report on the Child Care program at UM/Amherst. 

Mr. Segar said that on the Amherst campus there were 
five individual child care programs, providing different services 
and being run differently, making it difficult to coordinate 
programs and develop recommendations. The greatest problem, 
he said, was the matter of funding. Between 75 and 80 percent of 
the cost for the programs was for staffing, and there was a 
great need for 01 positions at salary levels commensurate with 
those of public school teachers. Some of the research programs, 
he said, had better funding than the regular day care programs, 
since more federal money was available for research than for 
service type programs. The campus programs, he said, were chiefly 
service programs, managed on a crisis basis because of lack of 
funding. Although it would be desirable to develop model pro- 
grams, the resources to do so were not available. He said the 
programs were chiefly student-staffed, with graduate student 
and School of Education faculty supervision, and with assistance 
from various departments from the campus. 



Mr. Segar said that the clients of the child care 
programs varied on the various campuses. At UM/Amherst it was 
chiefly students who used the centers, while on the other two 
campuses, faculty and staff were also served. He said there was 
a need for better coordination of services and for more per- 
manently funded positions for staff working in the child care 
programs . 

Responding to a question from Chairman Shearer, Mr. 
Segar said the campus had submitted a proposal for Title XX funds 
for the coming year; however, he said, most of the funds for 
child care at UM/Amherst came from other outside funding; Title 
XX funds supported only a small part of the total cost. He 
said the child care programs needed legal assistance in the area 
of preparing proposals for obtaining outside funds. This service 
had been offered by the central administration. 

Chairman Shearer asked next for a report from UM/Boston 
Vice Chancellor Tubbs called attention to the fact that the 
report of the Boston campus was an interim report and that most 
of the development to date was the work of administrators and 



-2- 



I 



! 



> 



1 



n 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



staff. An attempt was now being made to get a commitment by the 
campus to the child care programs. He then asked Ms. Kelley to 
speak. She said that there were three different programs at 
UM/Boston, each with different goals. Staff from all departments 
were called upon to give support to the programs and much effort 
went into the interface with academic programs. There was now 
a need to determine which programs should be formalized. One 
program involves South Boston High School students, who do field 
work in the child care center. The campus, she said, had applied 
for grants, but as previously stated, most grants were for re- 
search projects and the campus child care programs did not fit 
into this category. Application had been made to the state for 
renovation money, but none was available. The Boston campus 
child care centers also needed legal advice in negotiating 
contracts. The programs needed the financial security that only 
permanent funding could provide. She said that the Title XX 
contract provided only $6.14 per day per child in the preschool 
category, while the actual cost was $10.63 per day. 

Mr. Segar said that it was difficult to keep permanent 
staff because of the lack of benefits, job security and promotion 
Three directors at UM/Amherst had resigned in the past year, he 
said, because of this lack, causing hardship on both the children 
attending the programs and their parents, who needed the security 
provided by knowing the child care staff. 

Trustee Baker asked Ms . Kelley for the status of the 
day care center at the College of Public and Community Service. 
Ms. Kelley said that adequate space was available once the licens 
was obtained. She said that she felt that as a state-run program 
the child care program in the Science Center should be a model 
rather than a subsistence program, and since it was also a 
training program, qualified teachers were needed. 

Chairman Shearer asked if there was a waiting list of 
children whose parents desired child care services. Ms. Kelley 
replied that there were approximately 50 names on a waiting list, 
and there were undoubtedly others who were not listed because of 
lack of faith on the part of the parents that the children could 
be accommodated. Of the children enrolled in the day care centers 
Ms. Kelley added, only 15 percent were children of staff or 
faculty. The majority were the children of students. Few stu- 
dents, she said, could afford the cost of day care without some 
type of scholarship. 

Trustee Kassler suggested that the Board must decide 
whether it had a primary responsibility to students, faculty or 
staff and that there must be a basic understanding as to where 
the money would be spent. Ms. Kelley said that the child care 
centers at UM/Boston were started as a result of student and 
staff pressure. Trustee Kassler said that since child care 
services partly determined the ability of some students to attend 
the University, it was important that once enrolled in the pro- 
grams, their children were assured of a place in the program. 



-3- 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



UM/Worcester- 
Child Care 
Proposal 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Segar said he felt it important that the fee 
schedule be such that funds meant for assistance to students did 
not, in fact, subsidize faculty and staff. However, he felt 
that both children and parents benefitted from the varying ages 
and backgrounds of the families resulting from the inclusion of 
staff and faculty in the use of the service. 

Trustee Kassler said that it was important to determine 
whether the service was to be a community service or a student 
service. Ms. Kelley said that at UM/Boston, the centers provide 
a summer service to the community, but at the same time the 
necessary spaces for students' parents are reserved for the fall 
semester. 

Chairman Shearer asked what the composition of the 
Board was which admitted students to the day care center. Ms. 
Kelley said that the by-laws stipulate the membership, which 
must include a student as chairperson, consumer parents, faculty 
and staff representation. Ms. Kelley said the campus is also 
trying to find ways to become affiliated with community day care 
centers that are licensed through the Office for Children, where- 
by care is provided in private homes, especially care for younger 
children and for the hours from five o'clock in the afternoon on 
into the evening. 

Ms. Amadon said the Committee might be interested in 
some current statistics. At UM/Boston women account for 93 
percent of the enrollment gain in the 1977-78 academic year. 
More women than men leave the campus because of family problems 
and responsibilities. Seventeen percent of the freshmen women 
have children, and 52.9 percent of these women also work. In 
some states there is now legislation mandating free child care 
services. Chairman Shearer asked if Ms. Amadon would provide 
her with a copy of the report indicating these trends. 

Chairman Shearer then asked for the report of UM/ 
Worcester. Ms. Simmons gave a brief overview of the proposal for 
the establishment of a day care center at the University of 
Massachusetts Medical Center. The day care center, she said, 
would be located on property owned by the state Department of 
Mental Health and would serve students, faculty and staff of the 
Medical Center as well as children with special needs, who would 
be referred to the center through UMMC clinics and the Department 
of Mental Health. The day care center would provide an educa- 
tional environment for the children and would also provide a 
teaching, training and learning model for students at the Medical 
School. 

Ms. Simmons said that the Committee on Student Affairs 
was being asked to review the programmatic features of the center 
after which the Committee on Budget and Finance would be asked to 
take action on the establishment of a trust fund, a fee schedule 
and to approve the lease of the building. 



I 



' 



-4- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Dr. Thompson added that there was great enthusiasm 
about the establishment of this model program for learning and 
teaching. He then introduced Ms. Rosen, who would be the 
Director of the Center, and Dr. Echkert, who would be the 
Pediatrics staff person. They were prepared to answer questions 
he said. 

Trustee Baker asked what the ratio of students to 
faculty and staff using the center would be. Ms. Rosen replied 
that the enrollment as presently contemplated would be three 
children of students, four of faculty and twelve of staff. The 
small enrollment of children of students, she said, was the 
result of the fact that students had already made commitments 
to other centers for the current year. Trustee Kassler asked 
how much of the funding would come from the Hospital Trust Fund, 
to which Mr. Cathey responded, saying that only a small portion 
of the cost would come from non-fee sources, and would be in 
proportion to the number of children of Hospital personnel who 
were enrolled in the center. 

Trustee Kassler asked what types of staff people had 
indicated an interest Ln the day care service. Ms. Rosen repiiec 
that among those expressing interest were nurses, technical 
assistants, physical plant employees and secretaries. 

Chairman Shearer asked about staffing loads neces- 
sitated by the long day, and whether the faculty was properly 
licensed. Ms. Rosen said that one of the staff would be providec 
through CETA, Work-study students and the staggering of hours 
would alleviate the problem of the long day. She understood 
that no license was necessary other than approval by the Office 
of Children. Chairman Shearer asked for information on the 
health component of the Center. Dr. Eckhert said that no major 
health component would be provided in order to allow parents 
the option to seek their own health care service, Chairman 
Shearer advised the need for caution in the determination of 
what special needs children would be admitted and who would bear 
the cost of their care. 



Discussion ensued on various parts of the program. Two: c f 
the concerns expressed were that students should receive priority 
and that the service was indeed a student service. It was the 
consensus that the proposal had merit. Trustee Kassler was con- 
cerned that the small number of students who would use the ser- 
vice did not warrant considering the day care center a student 
service; Trustee Batiste, however, was concerned that if the 
service were not considered primarily a student service, 
students' children might not receive priority. Trustee Kassler 
questioned whether the Student Affairs Committee should recom- 
mend action on a matter which he felt was not really a student 
service. It was agreed that Trustee Kassler and Trustee Batiste 
would attend the meeting of the Committee on Budget and Finance 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



-5- 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Mandatory 
Residence and 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to report that although the Committee on Student Affairs had 
not made a recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee, 
this should not be construed to mean that they disapproved of 
the proposal. Chairman Shearer asked to be recorded as always 
being in favor of day care. 

Chairman Shearer then turned to the matter of Mandatory 
Residence and Dining Commons Requirements — UM/Amherst. Mr. 



Woodbury explained that through oversight the Board of Trustees 
Dining Commons had not been requested to extend this requirement for the 1977- 
Requirements 1978 academic year. However, the campus had requested and 

collected fees from the students. Since the Board was required 
by statute to vote on rules and regulations, the Committee was 
now being requested to ratify the actions of the campus. Trustee 
Batiste said that she was personally opposed to these require- 
ments. Trustee Kassler suggested that since the academic year 
was so far along, it seemed that the Board should ratify the 
action of the campus, but that the Committee on Student Affairs 
should consider the matter of mandatory residence hall dining 
commons requirements at a later meeting and develop a policy for 
future years. With this understanding, on motion made and 
seconded, it was 



I 



VOTED; 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees extend 
for one year, beginning September 1, 1977, the 
provisions of the vote of June 4, 1975, with 
respect to the use of dining commons by under- 
graduate students at the University of Mass- 
achusetts at Amherst. 



I 



and 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees extend 
for one year, beginning September 1, 1977, the 
provisions of the vote of June 4, 1975, with 
respect to on-campus residency of undergraduate 
students at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst. 



and 



VOTED: 



Further, to recommend that the Board of Trustees 
not consider this limited extension as an expres- 
sion of policy for future years, and to recommend 
that the Board direct the Administration and the 
Committee on Student Affairs to undertake im- 
mediately a review of the policies underlying 
these votes and to make appropriate recommendations 
to the Board for the 1978-79 academic year. 

Trustee Batiste voted against the first two motions 
and Trustee Baker abstained from the votes on these motions. The 



' 



-6- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



third motion passed unanimously. 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned 



S.A. 
3/22/78 



at 3:13 p.m. 



John F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary 
of the University 



-7- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



i 



i 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MIMUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 



March 22, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 



ATTENDANCE: Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain, President Patter- 
son; Trustees Dennis, Krumsiek; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop ; Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer and Marks 

Other Trustees : Trustees Baker, Batiste, Kassler; Ms. Pinck 
representing Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Bondy, 
Assistant Vice President for University Relations; Mr. Gilmore, 
Special Assistant to the President; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director 
and Associate Vice President; Ms. Taylor, Assistant Budget 
Director 

UM/ Amherst" ! Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; Mr. 
Beatty, Director, Office of Budgeting and Institutional Studies 

UM/Boston: Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance 



UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Controller; Dr. Thompson, Associate 
Vice Chancellor for Community Planning; Ms. Rosen, Consultant 
; f or Day Care; Dr. Eckhert, Assistant Dean for Admissions 

Guest : Mr. 0' Sullivan, UM/Boston Student Trustee-elect; Mr. 
Harris, Title XX Project Director 

The meeting was called to order at 3:16 p.m. by Chair- 
man Crain, who asked that the second agenda item, Establishment 
of Child Care Trust Fund — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-064, T78-065) , 
be discussed first, so that Trustee Kassler, who was reporting on] 
the discussion of the Student Affairs Committee, could leave in 
time for another engagement. Trustee Kassler said that because of 
the limited number of students who would be using the Child Care 
Center, the Committee on Student Affairs had not been convinced 
that this activity should be considered primarily a student ser- 
vice. Of the current enrollment, only three are children of stu- 
dents; six of residents; four of faculty; and six of staff. The 
Committee, therefore, had elected to make no recommendations, but 



UM/Worcester— 
Establishment 
of Child Care 
Trust Fund 
(Doc. T78-064 
and T78-065) 



B & F 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

rather had agreed to refer the matter to the Committee on Budget 
and Finance for action with regard to the financial aspects. 
Trustee Shearer, Chairman of the Student Affairs Committee, he 
said, supported the day care center as a matter of principle and 
was in favor of the proposed day care programs. Trustee Batiste 
said that, as a student, she was concerned that if the center 
were not viewed primarily as a student service, those students wh<b 
might wish to use the service might not be accommodated. 

Dr. Thompson said that there was a definite need at the 
Medical Center for this service. Although the request for the 
service had come originally from students, he said that other 
members of the Medical Center also felt the need for such a fa- 
cility. The child-care center was already in place in the fa- 
cility offered by the Department of Mental Health and this seemed 
to be an excellent opportunity for the University to set up a 
model program with an educational component which would serve both 
UM/Worcester students and students of health services in other 
Worcester area institutions. To set up the standard that the 
majority of users must be students, he said, would mean that such 
a center would never be available at the Medical Center, since 
the size of the student body was small, few medical school stu- 
dents were married and still fewer had families. 

Replying to a question from Trustee Dennis, Mr. Cathey 
said that the greatest part of the cost of the center would be 
covered by users' fees. The income from these fees, CETA funds, 
and a small educational component from the Hospital Trust Fund, in 
addition to the contribution of the facility by the Department of 
Mental Health would be the sources of funding. The major expense 
he said, would be for staffing, and after the critical mass was 
reached, the number of children admitted would govern the size of 
the staff. Ms. Rosen added that although there were only nine- 
teen children enrolled, she expected the number to grow. In re- 
ply to a query as to who were expected to be the greatest users 
of the center, Ms. Hanson said that it would likely be nurses. 
Trustee Dennis asked whether it was anticipated that CETA funds 
would be available in 1979. Mr. Cathey said he believed the funds 
would be available and that the program qualified for them; there- 
fore he did not anticipate a problem in this regard. Trustee 
Batiste asked what assurance there was that students would have 
priority. Dr. Eckhert said that the intention was that students 
would be accommodated before others. Chairman Crain asked that 
the record show that should there be competition for spaces, stu- 
dents would be served first. 

Trustee Dennis asked what provisions had been made in 
the event that there was a deficit. Mr. Cathey replied that since 
there would be no charge for the facility, it was unlikely to 
happen. It was noted that the contribution from the Hospital 



-2- 



I 



\ 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trust Fund would be a proportional charge based on the number of 
Hospital staff children enrolled and that contributions by the 
Medical School would come from non-state sources. 

Trustee Krumsiek asked what provisions had been made 
for liability insurance. Ms. Hanson replied that no insurance 
had been budgeted for this project, since it would be covered by 
the University's regular coverage as a satellite facility. 

There was no further discussion, and on motion made 
and seconded, it was 



VOTED 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees establish 
a University of Massachusetts Medical Center Day 
Care Trust Fund, which shall have as its pur- 
poses the provision of day care services to the 
children of Medical Center students, faculty and 
staff, and to certain special needs students, and 
the creation of a teaching facility for the Medi- 
cal Center; said trust fund to consist of fees 
received for day care services and any other 
monies made available for the trust purpose by 
gift, grant, bequest, or other non-state appro- 
priation sources, provided, however, if said fees 
are insufficient to fully support the day care 
center, that any subsidy received from the Teach- 
ing Hospital Trust Fund shall be in proportion to 
the percentage of hospital employees, staff and 
associated personnel whose children are enrolled 
in day care center; funds held in such trust may 
be disbursed for operation of the day care center 
program and related expenses, all as more particu- 
larly described in Document T78-064. 

To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the Chancellor/Dean of the Medical Center and the 
Acting Treasurer to enter into a lease agreement 
between the University of Massachusetts Medical 
Center and the Department of Mental Health for 
the operation of the day care center program de- 
scribed in Document T78-064. 



and further 



VOTED : 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the fee schedule for the University of Massachu- 
setts Medical Center Day Care Program as set forth 
in Document T78-065 for the remainder of this fis- 
cal year. 



It was the understanding that this matter would be re- 
viewed prior to establishing fees for FY79. 



-3- 



B & F 
3/22/78 



B & F 
3/22/73 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain then called for discussion of the item, 
Psychological Services Center Trust Fund — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78- 
067). Mr. Beatty said that this service was in operation, but 
that the money supporting it was deposited in a bank account with 
out a trust fund having been established. The auditor had called 
attention to this illegality, and the establishment of the Trust 
Fund was a means of legitimizing the structure of the Fund by in- 
suring that the funds are appropriately processed through the 
University's accounting system. 

President Patterson Inquired about insurance coverage 
for this activity. Mr. Beatty said that the staff of the Center 
had been informed that they must budget for insurance coverage 
for students as well as for staff and faculty. This, he said, 
would be done. Questions were raised about the source of funding 
for the center and how the reserves had been accumulated. Mr. 
Beatty replied that the funding came from a large Mental Health 
Training Grant, and the reserves were the result of frugal spend- 
ing. Chairman Crain asked that Mr. Beatty report to the Commit- 
tee when insurance coverage for students had been obtained. On 
motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 
establish a University of Massachusetts/ 
Amherst Psychological Services Center 
Trust Fund, which shall have as its pur- 
pose the providing of counseling and psycho- 
therapy for adults and children to be rendered 
by graduate students as part of graduate de- 
gree requirements. 

Further, that this self-supporting trust fund 
(in conjunction with any National Institute 
of Mental Health grants) support the cost of 
supplies and materials, secretarial and adminis- 
trative assistance, telephone services, liability 
insurance, equipment, and travel expenses for the 
operation of the Psychological Services Center, 
as more fully described in Document T78-067; 
provided, however, that no compensation shall be 
provided to said students from this fund. 

Further, to close all accounts in the Amherst 
Savings Bank into which fees have been deposited 
by the Psychological Services Center and transfer 
any balances remaining in said accounts into the 
University of Massachusetts/Amherst Psychological 
Services Trust Fund. 



r 



-4- 



I 



» 



! 



( 



! 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Further, to adopt the fee schedule set forth 
in Document T78-067 and to authorize the 
Chancellor or his designee to modify from time 
to time at his discretion the fees for said 
services. 

Chairman Crain next asked for a Report on Residence 
Halls — UM/ Amherst. Mr. Kaludis said that President Patterson 
had asked two groups to study the financing problems of the resi- 
dence halls and to develop a program for renovations. Speaking 
for the first group, he said that an examination had been made 
of Building Authority funds, which revealed that their reserves 
were greater than required. 



___:These funds fell into two catagories. First, in Section 
10 reserves there was money set aside as an interest and sinking 
fund reserve for one-year debt service for each project, which 
accumulated in payments of 1/12 over the first twelve years of the 
project. Inspection indicated that there was as much as $1 million 
in this account over and above the amount that should have accumu- 
lated to date. Second, the Construction Surplus account had ap- 
proximately $2 million; this money was accumulated through the 
issue of bonds, but had not been expended for the construction 
projects. Third, in the Debt Service fund there was about an ad- 
ditional $1 million, coming from several sources — approximately 
$400,000 in HUD interest subsidy money on Project 12 and some 
$600,000 accumulated on other projects over the years. The total 
amount that might be available, therefore, was around $4 million. 

The University had not approached the Building Authority 
as yet, he said, and it might be best to apply for the HUD money 
first; however, he would be talking with Mr. Pumphret of the 
Building Authority in the near future in an attempt to free up 
some of the surplus. The legal staff had received some 5,000 
pages of documentation in their research on this matter. 

Chairman Crain explained that there were currently two 
Trustees on the Building Authority — Trustees Spiller and Troy. 
The Chairman of the Authority was a former Trustee who was also 
a former Chairman of the Finance Committee. Counsel for the 
Authority, he said, was Morris Goldings . 

He added that the Trustees had asked the matter of the 
residence halls to be considered a priority item and had asked 
President Patterson to advise the Trustees on strategy with re- 
gard to the Building Authority surpluses. 

President Patterson said he had asked Mr. Woodbury to 
chair a Task Force to schedule work on the residence halls. 
Trustee Dennis asked whether the comments by the auditors with 



B & F 
3/22/78 



UM/Amherst- 
Report on 
Residence 
Halls 



-5- 



B & F 
3/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

regard to the accounting systems for the residence halls had been 
included as part of the study on these buildings. 

Mr. Woodbury said that the Task Force was determining 
what the schedule and priorities should be for repairs and modifi- 
cations to the residence halls. The residence hall staffs had 
submitted their overview of the requirements. The Task Force was 
dealing with fire and safety code requirements as well as with 
provisions for the handicapped. Mr. Beatty, he said, was looking 
into resources to cover this work. Mr. Woodbury said that al- 
though the dormitories were in a state of disrepair caused by 
maintenance deferred when funds were not available, they were not 
yet about to collapse. He said that vandalism often increased as 
buildings deteriorated. However, vandalism seemed to be decreas- 
ing at UM/Amherst, and there was more student support for discipli 
nary action. He said that the system is large and densely popu- 
lated, and such circumstances give rise to problems. 

Mr. Beatty explained that the residence halls fell into 
two major categories, those that were funded by bond issues and 
were self-amortizing and those that were state owned. The first 
category, he said, were buildings that the former Building As^ 
sociation and the present Building Authority controlled; the 
second were those constructed by the Bureau of Building Con- 
struction. Once the debt service on the Building Authority resi- 
dences had been paid off, he said, these buildings became the 
property of the state. Mr. Woodbury added that each year some $1 
Jiillion is budgeted for the maintenance of the residence halls. 
Chairman Crain said that he had noted some cases where some of 
this money had been diverted to other purposes, which was a source 
of student complaint. 

Ms. Pinck said that Title VI, the Higher Education Fa- 
cilities Act, was expected to be funded, and that would make avail 
able a substantial amount of money for handicapped renovations. 

Mr. Kaludis said that resulting from the studies now 
being undertaken there might be some long-term proposals for 
changes in the density patterns of the residence halls. Many of 
these buildings, he said, were built in response to the need to 
accommodate the burgeoning student enrollments of the sixties, 
and both density and methods of financing needed to be studied. 
Mr. Beatty added that he had read that deferred maintenance in 
university facilities nationally was now a $35 billion dollar prob 
lem. In response to a question from Mr. Barrus , Mr. Woodbury said 
that the University was actually not currently in violation of the 
fire code, but the campus was trying to improve upon the safety 
features. He said that the health code was such that even the Cit|y 
of Boston refused to admit to its existence. He said that when 



r 



-6- 



I 



for Collective 
Bargaining 



B & F 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 3/22/78 

code violations were discovered, these conditions were rectified 
with due haste. Chairman Crain asked that the Committee be kept 
updated on this matter. 

Chairman Crain asked next for a Report on Outside Coun- Report on Out- 
sel for Collective Bargaining . Ms. Hanson reported that outside side Counsel 
legal counsel was used for negotiations with the faculty, for 
grievance and arbitration matters, and for technical legal ac- 
tion on strategy. Skoler and Abbott had been engaged for classi* 
fied staff negotiations at an amount of $65/hour plus expenses, 
for a total cost in FY 1977 of $65,780. Morgan, Brown, Kerns 
and Joy had been used last year in faculty negotiations at a 
cost of $75/hour for a total of $51,017. This firm had been 
used also for the first part of FY 1978 at a total cost of 
$44,000. Foley, Hoag and Elliot was now being used at the same 
per hour cost. The chief negotiator is Gary Wulf, who charges 
$175/day plus expenses, whose total bill to date is $6,804. A 
consultant, Walter Powell, has also been used at a charge of 
$300/day plus expenses for a total to date of $3,038. The col- 
lective bargaining costs for FY 1977 were $116,000 and will 
probably amount of $123,000 for FY 1978. Trustee Dennis asked 
if there was a comparison on the cost of outside vs. inside 
counsel. Ms. Hanson said there were now three general counsels 
for the University, one of whom worked primarily on Medical 
Center issues. In addition, there was also a counsel on the 
Amherst campus. President Patterson said there were at least 
nine or ten cases pending at the moment. 

Trustee Krumsiek stated his concern about the possibility 
of deferred billing by the outside counsel's casuing the cost to 
run between $50,000 and $60,000 for the last six months of this 
fiscal year. Ms. Hanson said she felt that unless there was a 
major snag in negotiations, the University would be within the 
amount budgeted for this item. Ms. Hanson said she had asked 
for itemized bills from each counsel. 

Chairman Crain next asked for the Update on Title XX 
Training Grant , since he said he wished to hear this report be- 
fore he had to leave. Mr. Kaludis reported that the scope of 
the project had been substantially reduced, down from $2.5 mil- 
lion to between $800,000 to $900,000. When the project had 
originally been developed, it was anticipated that the Univer- 
sity would be responsible for the overall program content, but 
would subcontract some of the educational components. This 
would have necessitated staff to coordinate activities through- 
out the state. These assumptions had now been changed due to 
the reduced scope. Now all activities would be handled on a 
University campus and logistical needs were reduced substantially. 
The decision to release the Institute for Governmental Services 



Update on Title 
XX Training 
Grant 



-7- 



B & F 
3/22/78 



Affirmative 
Action in 
Purchasing 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

from oversight of the project was the result of the smaller 
grant and the fact that the programs were now all University 
based. There was no longer the need for their experience in 
handling large grants and dealing with subgrants. 

Mr. Kaludis said the University is now ready to go 
ahead on this project. He expected that any problems could be 
ironed out and that the exposure to the University was not great 
He said that the University is committed through June. 

Chairman Crain said he was concerned that a change of 
such magnitude could occur in such a short time and that it could 
not have been foreseen. President Patterson said that this 
change was not the result of any fault of the University person- 
nel, but rather resulted from the fact that the Department of 
Public Welfare had not cleared their proposal with HEW. This 
was not realized by the University until very recently. Presi- 
dent Patterson said that actually, it might be better in the 
long run for the University to begin this activity on a some- 
what reduced scale. Mr. Kaludis said that he still felt the 
program had potential. Mr. Beatty asked what the budgetary 
impact would be for the Amherst campus. Mr. Lynton replied that 
it was expected to be positive, through the return of overhead 
costs . 

Trustee Krumsiek asked if the Director of the Univer- 
sity Without Walls was going to direct the Title XX project, 
what would happen to the UWW. Mr. Lynton replied that funds 
from the grant would be available for a replacement for Mr. 
Harris . 

Trustee Dennis, assuming the chair upon Trustee Crain' s 
departure, asked next for a report on Affirmative Action in 
Purchasing . Mr. Kaludis said that as the written report indi- 
cated, UM/Amherst was not yet doing as well as could be expected 
but was showing improvement. In spite of this, the University 
was ahead of its target to date for the year. Ms. Pinck said 
that the state purchasing department procedures would probably 
be a roadblock. She said it would be helpful if the Executive 
Office of Educational Affairs could be provided in advance with 
copies of the small business and minority business directories. 
Ms. Pinck said the Executive Office could not help to get the 
money out faster, but in other ways it would do all it could to 
be helpful in this matter. 

Chairman Dennis asked why minority bidders had done so 
poorly compared to small businesses on non-bid items. Mr. 
Kaludis said that he did not have that information, but would 
try to obtain it. 



-8- 



} 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Dennis then asked President Patterson to re- 
view for the Committee the status of the FY 1979 budget request. 
President Patterson said that budget hearings had been held the 
previous day and had gone well. However, he wanted to mention 
a modification which had been made to the budget request as the 
result of action taken by the Board at the time of the mid-year 
budget review in March. He said that the Committee would un- 
doubtedly recall that it had been determined that it was appro- 
priate to charge the salaries for the Medical School based resi- 
dents to the Hospital rather than to the Medical School budget. 
It had occurred to the staff as they prepared for the budget 
hearings that this decision had not been reflected in the FY 1979 
budget request, and therefore before the hearings took place an 
adjustment had been made in the request to reflect this change, 
reducing the request for the Medical Center by $450,000, bring- 
ing the total budget for the Medical Center to $13,213,317 and 
reducing the total University budget from $127.27 million to 
$126.82 million. He said before this action had been taken, he 
had discussed it with Chairman Crain and he had seen no problem 
in so doing. There were no objections to this action. 

Ms. Hanson said that at the next meeting of the Commit- 
tee, Student Fees would be discussed and new fees and fee in- 
creases would be presented for the approval of the Committee. 

There being no further business, the meeting was ad- 
journed at 5:05 p.m. 



B & F 
3/22/78 

Amendment to 
FY79 Budget 
Request 



Jdhn F . Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary of the 
University 




I 



-9- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



r 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



1 



ATTENDANCE 



' 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEES 
ON FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 

April 5, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 
Room 308, Administration Building 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Committees and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President 
Patterson; Trustees Batiste, Breyer, Burack, Dennis, Krumsiek, 
Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Crain, Marks, Popko and 
Winthrop 

Other Trustees : Trustee Kassler 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; 
Mr. Sear son, General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Jones, Dean, School of 
Engineering; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 10:55 a.m. Chairman 
Troy said the first item on the agenda was a matter on which 
the Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy would have to 
act. Leslie Edelhoch, a graduate student in Sociology at 
Amherst, who had completed all the requirements for a Master's 
degree was terminally ill and it was possible that within a 
short time she would be unable to appreciate the University's 
recognition of her academic achievement. There was no discus- 
sion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To recommend that the Board of Trustees 
award the degree of Master of Arts in 
Sociology to Leslie Edelhoch and to author- 
ize the Chancellor of UM/ Amherst or his 
designee to confer the degree immediately. 

The Committees then discussed Administrative Salaries, 
Administrative Leave and Named Professorships . Mr. Lynton 
reminded the Trustees that these matters had been discussed at 
the January 25, 1978, joint meeting of the Committees and said 
there were a number of issues involved. The first had to do 
with salary policy for those on the staff who held academic 
rank and then became administrators, and a similar policy for 
such administrators who returned to faculty status. Another 



Award of 
Master of 
Arts Degree 
to Leslie 
Edelhoch 



Administrative 
Salaries, 
Administrative 
Leave and 
Profes- 
sorships 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



issue was that of leaves for administrators, both when they 
were serving as administrators and at the time they stepped 
down from their administrative posts. The final issue was that 
of named professorships. 

Since the January meeting, Mr. Lynton continued, a 
good deal of information about policies and practices at 
comparable institutions had been assembled and the Central 
Administration, in conjunction with the Provosts, had developed 
the suggestions now before the Committees. 

In the matter of salaries, it had been found that 
most universities had reasonably explicit policies or at least 
customs. In cases where a person was appointed to an adminis- 
trative position as well as a faculty position, these generally 
fell into one of two patterns. In the first pattern the 
salaries were set independently for the two positions. That 
is, there were two established salary ranges — one for the 
administrative position and one for the faculty rank. In the 
other, the administrative salary was set at a fixed increment 
above the faculty salary. 

Mr. Lynton said that it had been agreed that the 
Trustees should be asked to consider a mix of the two patterns 
for the University. In those instances where an individual was 
likely to return to faculty status after a limited term as an 
administrator — for example, a departmental chairperson — the 
administrative salary should be set at a fixed increment above 
the faculty salary. In the case of Presidents, Chancellors, 
Vice Presidents, Provosts and Deans, salaries would be individu- 
ally negotiated within predetermined ranges. The basic 
consideration in the setting of all salaries at the time of 
initial appointment would be the individual's professional and 
academic qualifications. While in most instances these salaries 
would be at or below the state maximum, there would be cases 
where the distinction of the individual would warrant exceeding 
the state maximum. 

Turning to the matter of leave policy for academic 
administrators, Mr. Lynton said the survey had found very 
little consistency throughout the country. Except for a fairly 
uniform practice of applying the institution's faculty sabbati- 
cal leave policy to administrators holding academic rank, the 
practice currently in effect at the University, there were 
virtually no set policies. 

Mr. Lynton said that it was the strong feeling of 
both the Provosts and the Central Administration that the 
granting of extensive leave to the administrators during their 
time as administrators was a very disruptive practice. The 
University would be best served by a policy which would dis- 
courage or perhaps forbid extensive leaves to administrators, 



I 



I 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



and which would encourage taking leave at the end of the term 
of office or between administrative assignments. However, it 
was recognized that provisions should be made to enable adminis- 
trators to take some leave while in office. Mr. Lynton said 
there was a three-part recommendation designed to deal with 
this issue: that administrators be allowed relatively short 
study leaves while in office; that provision be made for longer 
administrative leaves on completion of the administrative 
assignment; lastly, that there be the possibility of terminal 
leaves under certain circumstances. 

Mr. Lynton concluded his remarks by noting that the 
situation with regard to named professorships was somewhat 
chaotic. There was agreement that in the future named profes- 
sorships of any kind should be rewards for outstanding achieve- 
ment in scholarly or other faculty-related activities. Further, 
that the establishment of named professorships should be by the 
Board on recommendation of the President and that appointments 
to the positions be made by the President with the concurrence 
of the Board. 

Chairman Troy called for discussion on these matters. 
Trustee Burack said that Trustee Marks had asked her to convey 
to the Committees his comments on these issues. Firstly, he 
felt that the fact that the issue was being addressed was a 
forward step and he found the recommendations to be the basis 
of a good foundation. However, there were items which needed 
refinement and there was a need for explicit inclusions and 
exclusions. For example, in the first paragraph of the document 
entitled "Leave Policy for Academic Administrators" there was 
reference to an "appointing officer;" clarification was needed 
as to who this officer might be. 

Trustee Burack said that she and Trustee Marks both 
accepted the proposed three months' leave after five years' 
service mentioned in the same documents. They also might be 
convinced of the worth of the suggested five months' leave; 
however, both Trustees were disturbed at the recommendation of 
leaves of up to eleven months' duration. This could place an 
intolerable financial burden on the Commonwealth. Trustee 
Marks had also questioned the legality of the proposed terminal 
leave. Trustee Burack said that in other educational enter- 
prises, a person granted leave was required to state in writing 
an intent to return. Mr. Searson said this was true of the 
University, and that the requirement to return could be waived 
by the Trustees. Trustee Crain said that it was his recollec- 
tion that in earlier discussions Chairman Healey had stated 
that the granting of terminal leaves was illegal. Trustee 
Burack said that Trustee Marks had further recommended that 
votes on any of the matters which were being discussed be 
delayed. She said she too felt that there were a number of 
matters to be refined prior to seeking Board action. 



-3- 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Marks had also asked that the statement 
reading, "where an overscale salary may be justified by unusual- 
ly outstanding academic qualifications" be expanded and con- 
cluded with the clause, "and then only with the approval of the 
Board of Trustees." 



I 



Ms. Pinck, noting that the proposed leave policy in- 
cluded reference to accumulated vacation time, asked if the 
University allowed open-ended accumulation of vacation time. 
Mr. Allen said that a person who was entitled to vacations 
could accumulate no more than two years' vacation time. This 
was in agreement with state regulations. 

Chairman Troy said that the importance of leave 
to an administrator on returning to teaching should not be 
forgotten. This leave was necessary to catch up with advances 
in the individual's discipline. Trustee Burack said she had 
problems with this concern. Chairman Troy said that adminis- 
trators had great difficulty keeping abreast of scholarly 
matters. Trustee Burack said she could understand this; her 
question was why the state should be expected to pay for this. 
Chairman Troy said that this was to the benefit of the institu- 
tion in that it enabled a returning faculty member to regain 
effectiveness as a teacher. 

Professor Brogan said he wished to point out a 
related difficulty. An administrator, returning to teaching, 
could occupy a position already specified for another faculty 
member and could block needed appointments. He recalled that a 
number of years ago, when he was employed at a small college, a 
dean returned to teaching in the English Department after some 
thirty years as dean. The department had been seeking a 
Shakespearian scholar. As fate would have it the ex-dean had 
been a Shakespearian and thus filled the vacancy. Even a 
year's leave would not have qualified the man as a scholar. 
Professor Brogan said he wondered if some attention should be 
paid to this problem as this was not an infrequent occurrence. 

Trustee Burack, referring to the matter of leave for 
administrators, said that Trustee Marks had said that he did not 
agree with the recommendation that leave be given to an individ- 
ual who was switching from one administrative position to 
another. 



I 



Trustee Breyer said if his understanding was correct, 
the proposal was to grant an administrator three months' study 
leave after five years' service if the administrator intended 
to return to the same job. If the administrator intended to 
return to teaching, then six months' leave would be granted. 
He said he agreed with the latter concept. A person who had 
been away from teaching for an extended period needed time to 
prepare. Trustee Burack asked why the individual had to be 
paid for this preparation time. 



I 



-4- 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



1 



s 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Breyer said that this was related to the 
desired goal of having movement back and forth from teaching to 
administration. Without such movement, there would be a class 
of administrators and a class of faculty. Trustee Breyer said 
that while he agreed that Professor Brogan had raised an im- 
portant question, he still felt there should be some means of 
ensuring that administrators not become just professional 
administrators . 

Trustee Breyer further said that if one agreed with 
the concept that it was desirable to grant leave when an 
individual was changing jobs after a stated period, then one 
could more readily accept the proposal that a person leaving 
the institution after extended service in a high administrative 
post, such as the presidency, should be granted a terminal 
leave. Trustee Burack said she did not agree with the concept 
and she could not, in good conscience, accept the proposal. 

Trustee Kassler said that this raised the question 
of whether such leaves were cumulative. Several Trustees 
asked if sabbaticals were cumulative. Mr. Lynton said this was 
not the case. 

Trustee Dennis said he was concerned about granting 
leave in addition to the normal vacation time. Such leaves 
were not common in industry. In other words, should an en- 
titlement to leave be established? Mr. Lynton said this was 
normal practice in universities throughout the country. That 
is, an administrator holding faculty rank was entitled to apply 
for a sabbatical leave after several years' service. Chairman 
Troy asked how often this actually occurred. Mr. Allen said 
that there were very few administrators who remained adminis- 
trators long enough to be entitled to consideration for a 
sabbatical. He knew of only one or two cases where this had 
happened. Also when he first joined the University it was 
unusual for a faculty member to take a sabbatical every seventh 
year. Now this practice was almost uniform. 

Mr. Jones said that there were several points to be 
noted. One, alluded to by Trustee Breyer, was that it was 
desirable to attract administrators who were academicians. The 
discussion seemed to be leading to a crossroad — University 
administrators would not be those educated in an academic 
discipline; rather they would be those trained in management 
techniques. This was a situation he would abhor. 

Mr. Jones said that what was being proposed was a 
range of inducements necessary to get individuals to set aside 
their professional aspirations and take up administration for 
some period of years. What should be recognized was the need 
to make administrative positions desirable. The University 



-5- 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



could not offer the perquisites that industry could; therefore 
in order to attract good people it was necessary to offer the 
kind of benefits that were being discussed. The benefits 
proposed were in the best interest of the institution. 

Professor Brogan' s point about administrators re- 
turning to faculty, Mr. Jones continued, was simply a boundary 
condition that had to be handled. There were similar conditions 
which also had to be handled — for example, the state had 
abolished the mandatory retirement age. This meant that 
academic departments would have to retain faculty members whose 
only contribution would be to maintain student/faculty ratios 
and would not be able to hire individuals who could contribute 
to the further development of the departments. 

Trustee Crain asked for clarification of perquisites 
offered by industry that could not be offered by the University. 
Mr. Jones said these included higher salaries, use of a company 
car, country club memberships and other benefits. Trustees 
Crain and Burack said that Mr. Jones was speaking of industries 
with which they were not familiar. 

Another point, Trustee Crain said, was that academic 
administrators had the opportunity to serve as consultants. Mr. 
Jones said that this opportunity was not available to academic 
administrators in the School of Engineering. For example, if a 
department chairman took off one day a week to consult, the 
department would cease to function properly. Faculty members, 
on the other hand, operated on an academic year and were able 
to serve as consultants. One result of this was that they 
earned substantially larger incomes than did administrators. 
Trustee Crain said that while administrators in the School of 
Engineering did not do consulting, he had personal knowledge of 
other administrators who did. 

Trustee Breyer said it was his impression that none 
of the Trustees wished to radically change what was now being 
offered to academics and administrators at the University. In 
other words, the University should continue to offer that which 
comparable institutions offered. What was now needed was to work 
out the details. There seemed to be general agreement with this 
assessment. Trustee Dennis cautioned that one detail to be 
attended to was the need to write the policies very carefully 
so that people were not led to believe that they were entitled 
to more than the Trustees intended. 

Trustee Krumsiek said it was his understanding that 
before a sabbatical was granted, the applicant had to indicate 
the purpose of the sabbatical and to have this approved. In 
the discussion, the proposed administrative leave had fre- 
quently been equated with a sabbatical. This caused him some 
concern because nothing in the proposal indicated that the 

-6- 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



I 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



administrative leave had to be for an approved purpose. This 
matter was discussed briefly and it was agreed that there 
should be a control mechanism included in the proposal. One 
suggestion was that the administrator should follow the routine 
established for the granting of sabbaticals — that is, the 
individual would prepare a plan, submit it either to the 
appropriate academic department or the appointing authority 
and, on return, the individual would report on activities 
undertaken during the leave. 

Trustee Burack, speaking of the proposals for named 
professorships, said that she objected to the suggestions that 
individuals being appointed to such professorships be named by 
the President with the concurrence of the Board. For a variety 
of reasons, she urged that individuals be recommended by the 
President and approved by the Board. Mr. Lynton said the 
intention here was to establish the same procedures as were now 
used in making appointments to tenure. Chairman Troy said he 
thought that "approval" was perhaps a better word than "concur- 
rence." 

Trustee Kassler asked a question relating to indivi- 
duals hired with dual appointments. That is, if an adminis- 
trator were to be hired and also given a faculty rank because 
of financial or other considerations, and served only as an 
administrator for six years, would the appointment and rehiring 
in the seventh year automatically establish tenure in the 
faculty position? Mr. Lynton said that the tenure clock did 
not run while an individual held an administrative position. 
Also, the Board had an explicit policy which held that the 
granting of tenure was a positive award and could not be 
accrued by default. This policy had been upheld in several 
court cases. 

President Patterson said that Dean Riccards of the 
College of Arts and Sciences at Boston, a very able adminis- 
trator and capable political scientist, was in a somewhat 
unusual position. His only position was that of Dean. Were 
his tenure as Dean to end and if the Department of Political 
Science did not recommend his appointment as a professor, his 
connection with the University would end. In response to 
Trustee Burack' s comment that at times the University went too 
far in protecting the interests of individuals by awarding them 
tenure, President Patterson said that in the case of Dean 
Riccards he felt the interests of the University would have 
been better served had he been given a tenured professorship as 
well as being appointed Dean. 



I 



-7- 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



F&EP/B&F 
4/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Discussion was terminated at this point and there 
being no further business to come before the Committees, the 
meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. 



I 



k 





Dorothy Eicjiel 
Assistant Secretary 
to the Board of Trustees 



I 



-8- 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



\ 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE 
COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

April 19, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 

Office of the President 

Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staf f: Chairman Troy; President Patter- 
son; Trustees Breyer and Burack, Ms. Pinck representing Trustee 
Dukakis; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent: Trustees Morgenthau and Popko 

Other Trustees : Trustee 0' Sullivan 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs 

| UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery, Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Shapiro, Dean, Faculty of 
Natural Sciences and Mathematics; Mr. Jones, Dean, School of 
Engineering; Mr. Dym, Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering 

UM/Worcester : Dr. Goodman, Provost; Professor Smith, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

The meeting came to order at 10:37 a.m. Chairman Troy 
said the first item of business, Change in Name of Department of 
Food and Agricultural Engineering to the Department of Food and 
Engineering — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-072) , seemed a straightforward 
and logical change. The Trustees agreed and without further dis- 
cussion it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 

redesignate the Department of Food and Agri- 
cultural Engineering in the College of Food 
and Natural Resources at the University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst as the Department 
of Food Engineering, as set forth in Doc. 
T78-072. 

The meeting then discussed Graduate Education — UM/ 
Amherst. Chairman Troy said he hoped the discussion would serve 
as an overview of the general problem of graduate studies through^ 
out the University. He said he found the support materials pre- 
pared for the discussion to be excellent, giving, as they did, a 
very good historical perspective of graduate education at the 



UM/Amherst — 
Change in Name 
of Department 
of Food and 
Agricultural 
Engineering 
to the Depart- 
ment of Food 
Engineering 
(Doc. T78-072) 



UM/Amherst- 

Graduate 

Education 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

University, particularly at Amherst. Cognizance had been taken 
of the Willis-Harrington report, which had defined UM/Amherst as 
the public higher educational institution where the full range of 
graduate studies would be offered. Additionally, the Committee 
would have to address the issues fo graduate studies at Boston an<. 
at Worcester. 

The support documents, Chairman Troy continued, spoke 
of graduate studies at the University in the context of the 
national scene. This was necessary as the problems at the Univer 
sity mirrored those of graduate studies throughout the country. 

President Patterson, on being invited to speak by 
Chairman Troy, said his remarks would be very brief, as the most 
important purpose of the meeting was to allow the Trustees to dis 
cuss the major policy questions of graduate education throughout 
the University. He reminded the Committee that in his first re- 
marks to the Board as President he had spoken of the need for a 
clearer general policy for graduate education. He said he was 
pleased that the Committee had agreed to address this issue, as 
there was no issue of greater importance to the University. 

Chairman Troy said it was his understanding that evalua 
tions of graduate programs at Amherst had been going on for some 
time. He asked when reports of these evaluations would be avail- 
able. Mr. Lynton said there were a number of factors relating to 
this matter. There was an ongoing series of visitations by evalu 
ators from outside the University. These were being done on a 
program-by-program basis. The visitations had begun some four 
years ago and proceeded at the rate of five programs per semester 
As yet there had been no attempt to compile an overall synthesis 
of the evaluations. 

Also, Mr. Lynton continued, the academic Deans at 
Amherst had recently had a general discussion on the role of 
graduate education at the campus and were preparing a statement 
which would be available in due course. It was his understanding 
that the statement would include reference to the Deans' interest 
and desire to increase the graduate component at Amherst. The 
Central Administration had suggested that the Campus synthesize 
the completed program evaluations and while so doing provide the 
Administration and the Board with a critical evaluation of the 
current status of graduate education and with specific recommend- 
ations as to its future scope and range for the next five to ten 
years. The recommendations should be formulated with regard to 
the national situation as described in the National Board of 
Higher Education final report, "Outlook and Opportunities for 
Graduate Education." 

Trustee Burack asked if this meant that the Trustees 
would be told of programs which should be wound down as well as 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



} 



* 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

those that should be geared up. There were disciplines where 
there was a glut of Ph.D. candidates and the University should 
not be adding to this glut. On the other hand, there would al- 
most certainly be disciplines which should be beefed up. Mr. 
Lynton said it was his strong belief that the campus should take 
into consideration the current negative factors in the national 
situation as well as the opportunities for new directions. 
Trustee Burack cautioned that the University, particularly since 
it was a public institution, should not adopt the practice of 
designing programs around the skills of available faculty rather 
than redirecting faculty in new directions. 

Chairman Troy asked for clarification of the statement 
made in the support materials to the effect that the University 
had yet to reach the proper proportion of undergraduates to 
graduates. Chancellor Bromery said the Deans felt that the 
Trustee-mandated ratio of 14 percent graduate students and 86 per- 
cent undergraduate should be changed to allow a greater percentage 
of graduate students. Mr. Allen added that while there was 
agreement that the percentage was too low, it was too early to say 
what the percentage should be. 

In the matter of the ongoing review of graduate educa- 
tion at Amherst, Mr. Allen said, there were several things to be 
noted. Each program review had addressed the issue of the scope 
of each program. Further, the review had in many instances led to 
a reduction in the scope of the program; for example, in English 
and History. This happened because of the lack of demand for 
graduates in these fields. 

Another result of the reviews had been substantial 
changes that had been made in the nature and direction of certain 
programs. The primary emphasis in the Ph.D. program in English 
had changed from that of producing graduates who would devote 
their careers to literary research, and not much else, to that 
of an emphasis on pedagogy. The program now stressed the develop 
ment of individuals whose strength would be in the area of teach- 
ing the English language and writing skills. Trustee Burack ex- 
pressed pleasure at this change. 

One subject of the Deans' discussions, Mr. Allen contin 
ued, had been the nature of the relationship between graduate 
work and research. Graduate studies and research are among the 
defining characteristics of a university. Trustee Burack asked 
if consideration had been given to the possible effect on the 
Ph.D. demand picture of the present trend at many universities to 
return to more requirements in their undergraduate programs. 
Chairman Troy agreed that this should be considered. Also, 
another facet of graduate work and research that should not be 
ignored or abandoned was that of, as David Riesman had put it, 
"providing seed corn for the future." This was a critical factor 



-3- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in ensuring the quality of the institution. Ms. Pinck said that 
in addition to discussing the quality of the institution, it might 
be useful to address the issue of what constitutes a university. 
For example, on her own list of priorities for a university, re- 
sponse to student demand would be placed rather low. While this 
remark was subject to misinterpretation, she felt that to plan to 
respond to present demands of students was dangerous not only to 
the university as an institution but also to the idea of a univer- 
sity. Further, a public institution was in a particularly sticky 
situation in this regard in trying to meet current and probably 
passing demands and to retain the central core of the university. 

One thing that had not been mentioned, Ms. Pinck con- 
tinued, was that much of the growth and development of graduate 
education and research at the great universities over the past 
25 years, while splendid to watch, had occurred to the detriment 
of undergraduate education. Her own perception was that under- 
graduate education at Amherst was of a very high quality. It 
could be that having restricted the number of graduate students 
may have contributed to this. She said there was a temptation at 
great universities to concentrate enthusiasm and energies in 
graduate studies and to be overly fond of graduate students, and 
this had caused a great many undergraduate students to suffer. 
President Patterson said that the matter of the relationship be- 
tween undergraduate and graduate education could be incorporated 
into the ongoing review process at Amherst. Chairman Troy agreed 
with this suggestion. 

Trustee Burack said that it should be remembered and 
reiterated that for the great majority of undergraduate students 
at Amherst the four years spent earning a bachelor's degree were 
not a preparatory course for graduate school. The degree program, 
must of itself have an intrinsic value. This was crucial. 

Harking back to the discussion of undergraduate vs. 
graduate percentages, Trustee Burack said that imposed percentages 
made her very nervous. Discovered percentages were of some value, 
imposed ones were inane. Further, once the percentage was dis- 
covered it should not be used to compare the adequacy/inadequacy 
of graduate education at Amherst with schools across the country. 
Mr. Allen said it might be of use to note that some six years ago 
it was discovered that graduate students comprised 19 percent of 
the student population at Amherst. For a variety of reasons the 
Trustees at that time, imposed a limit of 14 percent. He said 
that, viewed in retrospect, the limitation was probably a good 
thing, if only in that it pushed the campus toward the review 
process . 

Mr. Lynton said he endorsed the proposition that one 
should not start with preconceived limits, particularly given the 
fact that the University was faced not only with external limit- 
ations and negative factors but also with positive external 
factors and fresh possibilities. The Amherst campus was fully 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

aware of the opportunities open to it in the form of new programs 
and new directions. 

Chairman Troy then asked if Amherst was moving toward 
a re-examination of the master's degree as well as the doctorate. 
Mr. Allen said that Master's programs were included in the on- 
going review. In other words, all graduate programs were being 
examined . 

Chairman Troy said there were time constraints to be 
met. He noted that the Trustees were thinking in terms of the 
campus reports being presented to the Committee during November in 
time for Board consideration in December. Mr. Allen said, if 
a deadline were to be set, Amherst could probably meet it. 

Chancellor Bromery said that the report should include 
material relating to the several undergraduate and graduate pro- 
grams offered by the Amherst campus and the other four colleges. 
While the campus was very much aware of these Five College pro- 
grams he was not sure the Trustees were as aware. President 
Patterson agreed. He noted that at present there were fifteen 
Five College Ph.D. programs. Certain academic departments were 
virtually Five College departments. In response to a question, 
President Patterson said that the Ph.D. degree was awarded by 
the University and was called a Five College degree. Mr. Allen 
said that at the last Five Colleges Deans and Deputies meeting, 
the matter of interchange enrollment had been discussed. "Inter- 
change enrollment" is the term used when a student enrolled at one 
institute takes courses at one of the other four. At present 
there were 6,000 such students; this amounted to 750 full-time 
equivalent students and was tantamount to being a fair-sized 
institution. Mr. Allen said that at the meeting concern had been 
expressed that the growth of interchange enrollment had ceased. 
To his mind the present size of the program seemed a good plateau. 
In response to a question, Mr. Allen said that for every three 
students from the other colleges taking courses at the University 
there were two students from the University taking courses at the 
other colleges. 

Trustee ' Sullivan asked for clarification of the state- 
ment in the proposed vote on graduate education at Amherst which 
said that Amherst would continue to have the principal respon- 
sibility for advanced graduate work and research. He expressed 
concern that this would effectively block a number of UM/Boston 
graduates from continuing their education, as they could not af- 
ford to become students at Amherst. Chairman Troy said the 
statement reaffirmed Amherst's role of being the basic focus of 
graduate education in the whole sector of public higher education 
in the Commonwealth; that is, the State Colleges, the Community 
Colleges and the University. Trustee Burack said that the state- 
ment had mainly to do with graduate education at the doctoral 
level. While the Committee had yet to discuss graduate education 



-5- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

at Boston, given the enormous cost of Ph.D. programs, there was 
a consensus that proposals to duplicate such programs could not 
be given serious consideration. President Patterson said that 
there had been a decision made in the early 1960's, based on a 
recommendation of the Willis-Harrington Commission, that the 
Commonwealth could only afford one public university that could 
be regarded as a research institution. This decision was re- 
flected in the proposed vote. The vote did not mean that Amherst 
would be the only campus to offer graduate work, but it did mean 
Amherst would be the only one involved in major advanced research 

Ms. Pinck said that a possible solution to the problems 
faced by UM/Boston graduates might lie in a different configuration 
of financial aid. Trustee f Sullivan said even this would not 
solve the problems of students with families in Boston. Trustee 
Burack said she sympathized with Trustee 0' Sullivan's concerns; 
however, the Trustees had to face realities. In view of the 
multi-million dollar investment and of the difficulties of estab- 
lishing Ph.D. programs, duplication of such programs could not be 
considered. It would be cheaper to move the students and families 
to Amherst. 

Mr. Kaludis said that in discussing graduate education, 
one had to design simultaneously a way to communicate with the 
Legislature about the program. At present, in discussions with 
the Legislature at budget time, the University did not really 
present a coherent case for the special mission in public higher 
education that the University had. He suggested that when the 
Trustees were deciding on the form graduate education would take, 
consideration should be given to how best to explain the University'is 
particular mission. Chairman Troy said that he thought that one 
of the values of this whole exercise was that it would allow the 
University to refocus and restate its specific responsibility in 
this area. 

Trustee Burack cautioned that Mr. Kaludis might have 
some difficulty persuading the Legislature to accept graduate 
education as a legitimate function of the University. Some time 
ago, she had attended a meeting of Trustees of public higher educa 
tion and members of the Legislature. During the course of the 
meeting the legislators had said point blank they did not believe 
that the state should fund graduate education. The imminent 
change in the structure of the Legislature could mean that this 
belief had weakened and that the University would have an opportu- 
nity to exploit this. All members of the Legislature should be 
told of the University's needs and plans. 

Trustee Breyer said he wished to speak on two points 
that had been made. First, he agreed that the final report should 
include material regarding the Five College programs. Additionally 
the remark that the University in its deliberations should take 
into account the findings and recommendations of the final report 



■6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of the National Board on Graduate Education should be underscored 
The report spelled out the horrors of producing thousands of ad- 
vanced level graduates who can't find jobs. This was a problem, 
particularly for professors who were under pressure to recruit 
students to help with research and other things. Thus there were 
conflicting pressures. He suggested that each person who works 
on the report or program for graduate education read the final 
NBGE report. In the matter of percentage limitations, Trustee 
Breyer said he agreed with Trustee Burack. There were numerous 
reasons why such limitations were unacceptable. However, there 
should be some sort of test. He suggested that each person, when 
signing off on the graduate education report, should do so only 
where satisfied that a reasonable and i informed human being, 
on reading the University report, would say that the report 
addresses the issues raised by the NBGE report. 

Mr. Kaludis said the one factor to be considered was 
that graduate education at public institutions in Massachusetts 
was not grossly overdeveloped, as was the case in other states. 
In other words, the Commonwealth had a rational base from which 
to move, and thus certain strictures of the NBGE report might not 
apply. President Patterson said this did not lessen the importance 
of Trustee Breyer 's suggestion that all should heed the NBGE re- 
port, particularly those at Amherst. Whatever conclusions were 
reached should be in the context of national studies. 

Trustee Burack said that if some at Amherst heeded the 
recommendations of the NBGE report, there would be those among 
them who would be very uncomfortable, because some would have to 
give up sovereignty, and abilities would have to be redirected to 
areas where they were needed. Ms. Pinck said that if Trustee 
Burack was correct in saying that changes would result in discom- 
fort, then it followed that there were people at Amherst who did 
not share the assumptions that everyone present at the meeting 
shared. She suggested that some effort be made to bring this 
matter to the attention of the recently established Special Com- 
mission Relative to the Organization of Public Higher Education 
in the Commonwealth. She said it was possible, but not probable, 
that the Special Commission would make this decision. The 
Trustees should cover all bases, including the Special Commission, 



Trustee Burack then said that votes which were, or 
appeared to be, open ended or irrevocable made her uncomfortable. 
She asked why the Committee was being asked to vote on this mat- 
ter at this time. Chairman Troy said that he saw the vote as a 
signal that the Trustees were intent on moving forward and ex- 
pected like action from the campus. The vote would put this in- 
tent on the record. Also, the campuses needed clarification of 
the Board's views regarding graduate education. An action by the 
Board would be good for campus morale. 



-7- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack asked the campus representatives present 
to convey to the campuses that which could not be conveyed in the 
vote — the serious intent of the Trustees that campus reports on 
graduate education should have substance and not be mere want 
lists. Chairman Troy said a survey of graduate education at the 
University had been done a few years back. The survey report was 
the size of the Manhattan phone directory and, as far as he could 
see, was purely descriptive. While description was of interest, 
the Trustees needed critical evaluations that have consequences. 
President Patterson said that Trustee Burack' s stress on substance 
and Chairman Troy's emphasis on critical evaluation would be of 
use to the Amherst campus in compiling its report. 

Mr. Shapiro asked if the Trustees were seeking a report 
which would be definitive for a extended period of time, say the 
next decade. His reason for asking this was that not all program 
reviews had been completed. Completion was two years away, as the 
maximum number of programs that could be reviewed per semester 
was five. 

The reviews, Mr. Shapiro continued, were the heart of 
the evaluation process. The Trustees should be aware that while 
a report could be available in October, the report would not cover 
those programs awaiting review. 

Mr. Lynton said that no report could be considered 
valid for ten years, let alone for two or three. Furthermore, 
while the reports should indeed be a critical evaluation and 
should evidence willingness to "bite the bullet" in terms of some 
reductions and some redirections, it should not be a simple list- 
ing of programs rated as to quality and importance on a numerical 
scale and showing enrollment projections for each. The level of 
specificity should be broader and, as had been said, should focus 
on qualitative evaluation, new directions and new clienteles. 
If some programs had yet to be evaluated, then so be it. 

Mr. Shapiro said it should be understood that he was 
delighted that there was now an opportunity for graduate educa- 
tion to come to the head of the agenda . This delight was shared 
by many others at the Amherst campus. If the campus report were 
as the Trustees expected, his final hope was that the outcome of 
the exercise would be greater Trustee support for the graduate 
programs, when they assumed their new form, then there had ever 
been in the past. As Mr. Kaludis had said, the graduate programs 
had been hidden, and people had been loathe to present them as 
such to the Legislature to such an extent that it could be called 
a bootleg operation. 

Chairman Troy asked if all the evaluation of the pro- 
grams were from outside the University and if the review cycle 
would be repeated regularly. The answer to both questions was 
yes. Trustee Burack suggested that consideration be given to 
evaluating whole areas rather than individual programs. In many 



■8- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

disciplines the boundaries of subject interest were becoming more 
and more blurred. If such disciplines were to be evaluated as 
areas, redirecting faculty resources could be accomplished with 
less difficulty. Trustee Burack concluded by urging that the 
program evaluations include material relating to the adequacy of 
library support materials for the programs. 

Mr. Lynton said the Trustees should know that the timing 
of this effort was particularly important for another reason — both 
Boston and Amherst were up for reaccreditation visits in October. 
He suggested that it would be useful to allow the accreditation 
teams to examine and comment on the drafts of the campus reports. 

Chairman Troy asked if Amherst could meet the October 
deadline for submission of its report. Mr. Shapiro said the dead- 
line could be met; however, the Trustees should realize that not 
all programs will be evaluated in the report because, as he had 
mentioned, the outside evaluation cycle had yet to be completed. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees re- 
' affirm that the Amherst campus Of the 
University of Massachusetts continues to 
have the principal responsibility for 
carrying out the University's role as the 
primary locus of advanced graduate work 
and research within the public sector of 
higher education in the Commonwealth, and 
further to recommend that the Chancellor be 
asked to prepare by October 1978, for review 
by the President and the Board, a critical 
evaluation of the range and categories of 
graduate programs which will allow the Amherst 
campus best to fulfill this responsibility. 
This report should be based on full campus 
consultation, and should take into account 
the findings and recommendations in the 
Final Report of the National Board on Gradu- 
ate Education. 

The meeting then discussed Graduate Education at 
UM/Boston . President Patterson said that the proposal for Boston 
was based on a discussion that had been going on for some years. 
Involved were faculty and members of the administration from 
Boston, Trustees and members of the central administration. The 
recommendation for Boston represented a fair amount of consensus 
on the part of the participants in the long discussion. 



■9- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UM/Boston- 

Graduate 

Education 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

President Patterson said the proposal was not for any 
kind of wholesale development of graduate education at Boston. 
What was proposed was a very careful, selective, reasonably 
limited development, all within the parameters suggested in the 
proposed vote. He said it was his earnest hope that the Committee; 
would look with favor on the proposal. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said she was glad to hear 
Trustee Burack's comments on percentages. One of her concerns 
was that a statement had been given to the Faculty and Educational 
Policy Committee which suggested that Boston be limited to 200 
graduate students. She said flexibility was needed in this area 
in order to bring already extant graduate programs up to a criti- 
cal mass. Also, over the next five years there would probably be 
few new programs initiated in view of the long process of getting 
Board approval and then the approval of the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion. 

Chairman Troy, noting that the campus now offered five 
graduate programs, with an enrollment of 80 students, asked why 
there didn't seem to be any growth. Chancellor Van Ummersen said 
the problem centered on the matter of resources. While the cam- 
pus had the facilities to accommodate more students, this could 
not be done until greater faculty resources were available. The 
number of additional faculty needed was not great, and it was coiit 
ceivable that this could be accomplished by transferring faculty 
now teaching advanced level courses to graduate teaching. 

President Patterson said that the number of 200 gradu- 
ate students had grown out of an earlier campus report and was an 
attempt to indicate the small size of the program being contem- 
plated. He preferred to work with an X factor, subject to con- 
trols, rather than a stated number. 



He said the Trustees should note that the proposed vote; 
dealt with matters other than that of increasing the number of 
graduate students in existing programs. The vote suggested the 
development of a limited graduate component based on stated con- 
siderations. It was of particular importance that the campus 
heed the consideration concerning the NBGE Final Report. Mr. 
Lynton said that the campus had begun to reconsider the current 
graduate programs because of their limited enrollment. Limited 
resources were only a partial explanation of the reason for lack 
of enrollment. Another factor was that the programs offered in 
the past may no longer suit the needs of the campus' clientele. 
The campus should undertake a thorough review of current pro- 
grams as well as making efforts to develop new ones. 

In the matter of the numbers of students, Mr. Lynton 
continued, the Trustees, in asking the Boston campus for a fairly 
detailed outline of anticipated graduate program development and 
for specific examples, were providing the campus with a means 
whereby a fairly definite picture of the scope of the program in 
the next few years could be obtained. 



-10- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack said that she had objected to a very 
great development of graduate education at Boston for two good 
reasons. One was that the campus should develop quality in its 
undergraduate programs before developing a graduate education 
component. The second was that an earlier report on graduate 
education had reflected an era that had already passed before the 
report was issued. The recommendations of the report had an aura 
of unreality — speaking of large numbers of Master's and Ph.D. stu- 
dents. She said that it was time for the University to lay to 
rest previous master plans, hoary guidelines and the whole era. 

Trustee Burack said she believed that at Boston there 
was a place and a need for a limited number of very selective and 
very well justified Master's programs. Part of the process of 
choosing these programs would include a review of the five pro- 
grams currently offered. The campus should concentrate on those 
Master's programs which were not offered at any other public in- 
stitution in the state. 

In other words, Trustee Burack continued, she was in- 
terested in and subscribed to a clean slate approach for graduate 
| education at Boston — an approach which was not tied to too many 
abstractions nor to too many numerical formulas and not at all 
tied to the past. 



The Trustees now had had an opportunity to move forward 
in new directions, Trustee Burack continued. She had the feeling 
that the Trustees and the University were coming together on this 
point. This could only be of benefit to the University and particu- 
larly to the Boston Campus. There were a number of important 
areas into which the University could move and offer unique pro- 
grams. The University should move forward flexibly and should 
draw on the faculty resources of the really excellent departments 
at Boston, of which there were many. 

In response to Ms. Pinck's question, Chairman Troy said 
that the efforts of the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee 
and the Long-Range Planning Committee in the matter of graduate 
education would be coordinated. This brought to mind the timing 
of the campus responses. Chairman Troy said it was his hope and 
that of the Committee, that the campuses would be able to bring 
to the Committee within a few months some rather specific reports 
on the kinds of new graduate studies that would be desirable. The 
target date for implementation of charges was the fall of 1979. 
This meant that descriptive material would have to be available 
in the near future in order to give the Trustees the necessary 
time to consider the recommendations. 



Chancellor Van Ummersen said the Boston campus would 
be able to submit a report to the Committee within two months. 
Also, there were two new programs that were in the final design 
stages. These would give the. committee a sense of the direction 



-11- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in which the campus would like to move, as well as serving as con- 
crete examples. Chairman Troy said this was what the Committee 
needed. 

Mr. Steamer said the Graduate Council was putting to- 
gether a comprehensive plan for submission to the Committee. 
Trustee Burack said the Council should be aware that this Commit- 
tee and the Long-Range Planning Committee were thinking specifi- 
cally in terms of advanced professional programs; not future 
graduate programs in the straight academic disciplines. 

Mr. O'Connell said the discussion had been very helpful 
and would help clarify the context in which the Graduate Council 
would be meeting and deliberating. The Council was now working 
on a very rough draft of a report. He said the Council would 
consider the findings and recommendations of the NBGE final report 

Mr. Lynton, referring to Trustee Burack's remarks on the 
nature of the new programs at Boston, said it was possible to take 
a master's program in a traditional discipline and shape it in 
such a way that it was career oriented. 



Trustee Breyer, speaking of the proposed vote before the 
Committee, said that the stated consideration on the avoidance of 
duplicating programs already available at other public institutions 
should not be interpreted as meaning that proposals for such pro- 
grams would be automatically excluded. The consideration was in- 
tended to make the campus think twice about such programs and to 
consider the possibilities of coordination with other institutions 



In the matter of particular emphasis on programs having 
career opportunities, Trustee Breyer continued, this should not be 
interpreted as meaning that at no time would Boston be allowed to 
offer a graduate program in a traditional discipline. The Commit- 
tee's concern was the tendency to proliferate graduate programs 
because it was in the self-interest of members of departments to 
have graduate programs. If a department were to recommend a 
special and unusual program, even though it would be traditional 
in some sense, the Trustees would certainly consider such a rec- 
ommendation. 

There then ensued a discussion on the advisability of 
incorporating Trustee Breyer 's concerns in the proposed vote, at 
the close of which it was agreed that they need not be in the 
vote, as the minutes of the meeting would reflect the concerns. 
Further, the vote as proposed would serve as an adequate guide 
to the campus in an area where guidance was sorely needed. There 
was no further discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To recommend that the Board of Trustees endorse 
in principle that the Boston campus of the Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts develop a limited graduate 



I 



I 



-12- 



I 



1 



I 



F & EP 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 4/19/78 

component consisting of carefully selected pro- 
grams, primarily at the Master's level, as was 
suggested in the Guidelines for Development of 
Graduate Education at Boston . These programs 
are to be chosen on the basis of the following 
considerations : 

— consistency with the opportunities as 
well as limitations provided by current 
national trends, as described in the Final 
Report of the National Board on Graduate 
Education, 

— sensitivity to the needs of Boston-area 
students with particular emphasis on 
career opportunities, 

— sensitivity to the role of the University 
within the public sector of higher education 
with particular emphasis on avoiding dupli- 
cation, 

— awareness of the opportunities provided by 
the Kennedy Library and the State Archives 
in exploring the possibility of a full range 
of graduate programs in one or two areas. 

Further, to recommend that the Chancellor be asked 
to submit as soon as possible, after appropriate 
campus consultation, an outline of anticipated 
graduate program development, with examples of 
contemplated programs, and that this be reviewed 
by the President and the Board prior to the sub- 
mission of any specific graduate program proposal. 

The meeting then discussed the Establishment of a Doctoral UM/Worcester— 
Program in Medical Sciences — UM/Worcester. Mr. Lynton said it had Establishment 
always been the intention to have such a program at Worcester. of Doctoral 



Program in 
Medical 



I 



A medical center, even one such as Worcester which was oriented 
toward community medicine, needed a research component associated 
with a doctoral program. As with the votes for Boston and Amherst, Sciences 
the proposed vote would serve as a signal to Worcester that the 
Trustees endorsed in principle the establishment of a doctoral 
program. This would pave the way for an actual program, docu- 
mentation for which was being readied for the next meeting of the 
Committee. 

Trustee Burack asked what was seen as the source of the 
students in the program. Professor Smith said the students would 



-13- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

come from in state as well as out of state. They would be inter- 
ested in pursuing careers in bio-medical sciences. One unique 
aspect of the program was that the students would receive training 
in the bio-medical sciences as a whole rather than concentrating 
on one discipline, such as biochemistry. On graduation, students 
could be employed at a medical center on a faculty level and could 
contribute significantly to the center in a meaningful way. Their 
bio-medical science curriculum would not include an administrative 
component . 

In answer to further questions, Professor Smith said 
the students in the program would take some of their courses, 
particularly the introductory courses, along with students in the 
M.D. program. There would also be courses, along with students 
in the medical science program only. The latter courses would 
not necessitate the hiring of additional faculty. The students 
would also share some of the clinical experiences with the medical 
students. After completion of the core curriculum, the students 
would move into areas of specialization in the more advanced 
courses. Throughout the training, they would be developing teach- 
ing skills. 

Professor Smith said that there was a possibility of 
some coordination of teaching effort with the Amherst faculty. 
The program could be seen as a Worcester area consortium effort 
in the sense that other institutions in the area — Worcester 
Polytechnic, Clark and the Worcester Foundation for Experimental 
Biology — would be part of the program and would offer components 
of the program that the Medical Center was not staffed to offer. 

There then ensued a brief discussion on matters relating 
to tuition. It was agreed that these matters, including that of 
the applicability of the medical students' payback provision, 
would be more fully discussed at the next meeting. It was then 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees endorse 
in principle the establishment of a doctoral 
program in medical sciences at the Worcester 
campus of the University of Massachusetts as 
being consistent with the nature of that campus 
and necessary to its proper functioning as a 
Medical Center. 

At 12:06 p.m. Chairman Troy called for a brief recess. 

At 12:23 p.m. the meeting reconvened. Chairman Troy 
asked for a motion to go into executive session in order to dis- 
cuss appointments with tenure. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 



I 



I 



VOTED 



To enter executive session, 



-14- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Troy, President Patterson, Trustees Breyer 
and Burack, and Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 
voted for the motion. Trustees Morgenthau and Popko 
were absent. 

At 12:50 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To end executive session. 

Without discussion, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
in the appointment by the President of Melvyn 
S. Berger as Professor of Mathematics and Statis- 
tics with tenure at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-073. 

and further 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
in the appointment by the President of Thomas 
L. Lardner as Professor of Civil Engineering 
with tenure at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-074. 

and further 

VOTED : To concur in the appointment by the President of 
Ernest T. Selig as Professor of Civil Engineering 
with tenure at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-075. 

There was no further business to come before the Committee, 
and the meeting adjourned at 12:52 p.m. 




Dorothy Ej/chel 
Assistant Secretary of the 
University 



-15- 



F & EP 
4/19/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Melyvn S. Berger 
as Professor of 
Mathematics and 
Statistics with 
Tenure 
(Doc. T78-073) 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Thomas J . 
Lardner as Pro- 
fessor of 
Civil Engineer- 
ing with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-074) 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Ernest T. Selig 
as Professor of 
Civil Engineer- 
ing with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-075) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



■ 



NOT USED 



■ 



» 



1 



ATTENDANCE: 






\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
LONG-RANGE PLANNING 



April 19, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Marks; President 
Patterson; Trustees Kassler, 0' Sullivan, Sawtelle and Troy; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Popko and Robertson 

Other Trustees : Mrs. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Cooley 
Associate Vice President for Analytical Studies 

U M/ Amherst : Mr. Jones, Dean, School of Engineering 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Fenstemacher , Director, 
Institutional Planning and Budgeting; Professor Martin, Faculty 
Representative; Professor Schwartz, Alternate Faculty Representat:. 



Guest : Ms. Judith Baker, UM/Boston 

The meeting came to order at 3:08 p.m. Chairman Marks 
asked Trustee Troy to comment on the meeting of the Faculty and 
Educational Policy Committee held earlier in the day. Trustee 
Troy said the meeting had discussed graduate education on each 
of the three campuses. The discussion was based on some very 
worthwhile reports supplied by the central administration which 
outlined the national situation of graduate education and then 
dealt in some detail with the situation at the University. In 
addition, the reports had included several recommendations with 
which the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee had agreed. 

For example, Trustee Troy continued, the Trustees had 
agreed that Amherst should continue with its evaluations of all 
existing graduate programs (these had been going on for some few 
years) and had further agreed that the campus should attempt to 
complete a report for Trustee consideration in the fall, either 
October or November. The report would include the campus's 
assessments of strengths and weaknesses of the programs and areas] 
where reductions might be desirable, as well as new departures that 
might be advisable. Trustee Troy said it was his hope that the 
report would be available in time for the Faculty and Educational 
Policy Committee to make recommendations to the December, 1978, 
meeting of the Board. 



Report by 
Chairman of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy said the Faculty and Educational Policy 
Committee then discussed graduate education at Boston. The 
Boston campus intended to develop a limited graduate component 
within the "Guidelines for Development of Graduate Education at 
Boston," which document the campus had presented to the Board in 
April, 1976, and with reference to the findings and recommendations 
of the "Final Report of the National Board on Graduate Education.' 
There was general and longstanding agreement that Boston would not 
attempt to duplicate what was being offered at Amherst. What was 
envisaged were rather modest and highly selective programs, most 
at the master's level. In developing graduate education, Boston 
would take cognizance of the opportunities offered by the presence 
of the Kennedy Library and the State Archives on Columbia Point. 



The Boston campus, Trustee Troy continued, had been 
asked to present to the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee, 
within a month or two, an outline of how they would like to begin 
the expansion of graduate education. It was assumed that the five 
current programs would continue at least for the present. The 
oultine would include examples of the kinds of interdisciplinary 
programs the campus had considered. Most of the programs would be 
adapted to career needs. None of the contemplated programs would 
require new resources and none would detract from the quality of 
the undergraduate program. 

The Worcester campus, Trustee Troy said, wished to 
develop a Ph.D. program in medical sciences. In addition to 
benefitting students, the program was necessary for the further 
development of the Medical School. One of the few major criti- 
cisms in past accreditation evaluations had been the lack of such 
a program. 



At the May 3 Board meeting, Trustee Troy concluded, the 
Faculty and Educational Policy Committee would ask the Board to 
act on three votes — the first would reaffirm that Amherst would 
continue to have the primary responsibility for carrying out the 
University's role as the primary locus of advanced graduate work 
and research within the public sector of higher education in the 
state, and would ask the Chancellor to prepare by October, 1978, 
a report on graduate education; the second would enable Boston 
to develop a limited and carefully selected graduate component 
for Board consideration; the third would endorse in principle the 
establishment of a doctoral program in medical sciences at 
Worcester. 

President Patterson said he was especially pleased with 
the action of the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee in 
bringing these matters to the Board's attention. Board action 
here would indicate to the campuses Trustee concern and leader- 
ship in an area of major interest to the University as a whole. 
The action could be seen as a landmark in the development of the 
University. Also, the Trustees should be aware that there were 
many additional possibilities to consider and discuss in the 
future; for example, collaboration among the three campuses on 
some graduate programs. 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chairman Marks said that he too saw this as a watershed, 
This was a policy issue where resolution had been delayed for too 
long a time. If the Board accepted the Faculty and Educational 
Policy recommendations, then each segment of the University could 
move forward in concert in developing specific policy guidelines 
which would lead to a deepening and strengthening of graduate 
education at all three campuses. 

The meeting then discussed Missions and Goals — UM/Boston 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said the document concerning the missions 
and goals of UM/Boston which the Trustees had received was the 
result of a fifteen month effort by the campus Long-Range Planning 
Committee. Members of the committee, in their more recent 
deliberations, had focused on the major priorities for the campus 
and had agreed on a number of matters. These included agreement 
that the collegiate system was working and should continue; how- 
ever, there was also agreement that there was a need for some 
University-wide programs which cut across college "boundaries." 
There was agreement that while each college should in many ways 
retain its unique character, the University could not afford to 
offer similar or only slightly different programs in each college, 
The need for coordination and a utilization of resources across 
college lines was recognized. Chancellor Van Ummersen said that 
she and the Vice Chancellors in their discussions on these matters, 
had come to the same conclusions as the committee. 

She said there was a clear consensus that the campus was 
an urban campus and as such should continue its efforts to serve 
the needs of the community. This would impinge on the quality of 
student life and on the kinds of students that the campus would 
serve. The University would have to maintain its ability to deal 
with students who need special preparation, but also it should be 
able to offer programs at a level that would attract and stimulate 
students who were very well prepared for college. 

There was agreement that more of the faculty should be 
involved in the efforts to meet the needs of the community. In 
some instances this involvement could take the form of applied 
research, and in other cases, of special programs. One such 
proposal, now in the planning stage, was for an urban institute, 
The institute would offer not only academic programs but also 
would conduct needed research. This agreement was reflected in 
the recognition by the campus Long-Range Planning Committee and 
the administration of the need for a renewed commitment to the 
community. 

The matter of graduate education had been among the 
faculty's concerns, the Chancellor continued. This concern had 
been answered at the just completed meeting of the Faculty and 
Educational Policy Committee, when it agreed to recommend that 
the campus begin the development of a graduate component. This 
was probably the most positive thing that had happened for the 
campus in a long while and would be a clear indication that the 
Board and the President did support the campus. 



-3- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UM/ Bos ton- 
Missions 
and Goals 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chancellor Van Ummersen concluded by noting that she 
felt there were two things that were not in the missions and goals 
statement that the Trustees should be aware of: 1) the campus 
need to begin to move into the area of continuing education, and 
2) the large population of older citizens who were not being served 
Both academic and non-academic programs for these people should 
be developed. She then asked Mr. Steamer to comment on the urban 
affairs institute. 



Mr. Steamer asked leave to put all these matters into a 
broader context. UM/Boston was spread very thin, he said; that 
is, probably too many things were being done and not enough of 
them were being done well. Coupled with this was the fact that 
the campus could not stand still; and there was the possibility 
that it should be doing things other than what it was doing. 
Even in the face of all this, it could be argued that the Univer- 
sity ought to excel in some programs. 

Within this framework, Mr. Steamer continued, there 
were two groups that were working on programs that were very 
important to UM/Boston. One was the urban research institute. A 
faculty committee had been charged with describing its establish- 
ment and defining its function. Mr. Steamer said he envisaged 
the institute as doing both research and teaching, conceivably 
on both the undergraduate and the graduate level. Such an insti- 
tute could tie in with the urban mission of the University. A 
report on this would be available at the end of the current semester. 



The second proposal, Mr. Steamer said, was a program 
in mass communication. A faculty group was working on a recom- 
mendation for an academic program in this area. This program was 
in the initial stages. 

Speaking of other matters, Mr. Steamer said that at 
UM/Boston there were 429 teaching faculty. Of these, 357 were in I 
the College of Arts and Sciences, 34 in the College of Profes- 
sional Studies, and 38 in the College of Public and Community 
Service. Thus, one could say that UM/Boston was basically a 
liberal arts college with two small satellites. This was a matte] 
of concern because if the level of resources remained roughly 
constant for the next few years, then the campus would need some 
direction from the Board as to the size of each of the three 
colleges. If the CPS and the CPCS were to grow and if funding 
remained static, then the growth could only be done at the expense 
of the CAS. There was quite a student demand at the CPS, and a 
lesser demand at CPCS. Sizes for each of the colleges should be 
projected whether or not additional resources were forthcoming. 
These projections were essential, as any new programs would entai!. 
reductions in other areas. 



In response to Trustee Troy's question, Mr. Steamer 
said that 50 percent of the courses taken by students enrolled in 
the College of Professional Studies were given by College of Arts 
and Sciences faculty. 



-4- 



I 



I 



t 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Troy recalled that in February 1976 the Faculty 
and Educational Policy Committee had discussed the Altshuler 
report on the CPCS. The report was friendly and hopeful; however 
it did find that there was not enough emphasis on intellectual 
matters in the college's program; it was overly practical. The 
mathematics and liberal arts components were too limited. He 
asked if anything had been done about this, noting as he did so 
that this was but one of many thoughtful and well written reports 
which had come to him as a Trustee. In his experience, nothing 
ever came out of these reports. Mr. Steamer said the College had 
increased its liberal arts offerings but not to the extent 
necessary. 

Related to this, Mr. Steamer continued, was his proposal 
that all students at Boston take a common freshman year. This 
proposal was just in the talking stages and was not faring too 
well. Professor Schwartz said it might be of interest to note 
that Dean Riccards of the CAS had appointed a committee to study 
the interrelationships of the three colleges. The committee had 
issued a report. It recommended that CPCS students receive more 
instruction in liberal arts, not, however, on a mandatory basis 
as was the case with CPS students. He thought that a requirement; 
that CAS offer additional instruction to CPCS students would not 
be viewed with favor. A recommendation for greater cooperation 
between the two colleges and some beginning steps would not meet 
such resistance. 

Chairman Marks asked leave to return to the subject of 
resources. Earlier it had been mentioned that resources at Bostoi 
were already stretched very thin. It should also be noted that 
at least two things already on the horizon would place even 
greater demand on available resources. One was the Clark Physicat 
Education Complex which, when completed, would require significant 
funds for maintenance and staffing. Also if, as was likely, the 
campus was permitted to develop a greater though still limited 
graduate component, new resource demands would follow. All of 
this would impact on resource allocations among the three collegejs , 
which problem would exist even without additional demands. Thus 
it was imperative that hard decisions would have to be made. 



Ms. Pinck said another factor in all this had to do 
with admissions. Given the relatively substantial numbers of 
faculty, one would wish to have statistics about the numbers of 
applicants, yields and so forth. In the sense of having flex- 
ibility in terms of directions in which to move, Boston was in 
a better position than Amherst. At Amherst the problem was one 
of maintaining the concept of a university. At Boston the prob- 
lem could be seen as one of maintaining the creative tension 
between the concept of a university and student demand. She 
said she would like to hear information about the type of student 
who wanted to enroll at Boston and the reasons for this desire. 
She said she was not implying that student demand should drive th 
campus; however, it had to be considered. 



-5- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Lynton said another key point, as Mr. Steamer had 
said, was that Boston could not possibly do everything that it 
wished to do. Some very painful choices would have to be made, 
choices which might entail reducing or eliminating some present 
activities in order to do things which were deemed to be more 
valuable. Chairman Marks said this was definitely true. Another 
important element that had been touched on briefly was that of 
the need to ascertain what programs other public institutions in 
the area were offering so that Boston did not mindlessly duplicate 
programs that were already available and were being done well. 

Speaking of the matter of reallocation of resources, 
President Patterson said it was his sense that the exercise now 
being undertaken by the Long-Range Planning Committee may have 
as its most useful result the establishment, at the Trustee level, 
of a sense of mission and goals and a configuration which would 
serve as a guide to the leadership of the campus in making the 
necessary hard decisions in reallocating resources. If the Trustees 
and the Central Administration did not provide some guidance in 
this area, the campus leadership would be faced with a tremendous 
burden which, in human terms, would be very difficult to work out 
President Patterson said it was his belief that the Trustees, the 
Central Administration, the campus administration and the faculty 
leadership should work together on this , particularly in a 
changing situation where one, as Chancellor Van Ummersen had 
pointed out, was sure there would be no large influx of new 
resources. A clear Trustee statement as to what was expected of 
the Boston campus would be very helpful. 

Trustee Troy, harking back to the earlier discussion on 
applicants and enrollments, said it was his understanding that 
there were some 6,000 students in the College of Arts and Sciences 
with little or no growth expected; it was projected that the 
College of Professional Studies would have some 1,500 to 2,000 
students by 1981; and the College of Public and Community Service 
was expected to have about 1,000 students by that year. This would 
mean that the University would be well within the Trustee mandated 
ceiling of 9,000 students in the year 1981. Chancellor Van Ummersen 
said she was not sure that the University would grow to that size£ 
however if it did so, the campus might be faced with the problem 
of choosing which of the colleges was to grow and which would be 
forced to cut back. Unfortunately, the Trustee policy on the 
size of the student body gave no guidance in this area. Chairman 
Marks said the Committee could look into this matter; however, 
one should realize that in asking the Board to make decisions, 
such decisions, however carefully thought out and however con- 
structively intended, could cause dislocations. Hopefully the 
dislocations would be as few as possible and the decision would 
work to the benefit of the campus as a whole; however, the Board 
could not arrive at such a decision without addressing the 
question of the ultimate allocation of resources. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said this related to one of her 
concerns, that of finding a way to base requests for funds from 
the Legislature on programs rather than on numbers of students. 



-6- 



' 



I 



! 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

This was a particular problem for Boston, a relatively new campus 
which had yet to develop stability. Trustee Troy said he was con' 
cerned about both programs and numbers of students. Programs ob- 
viously were a key matter; on the other hand the population to 
provide growth was available and, in talking withe the Legisla- 
ture, it was necessary to state how many students the campus 
wou dhave . 

President Patterson said he understood Trustee Troy's 
point; however, projecting enrollments at both Boston and Amherst 
was a difficult task, not a simple matter of extrapolation. The 
University was faced with a shifting, unstable picture. This was 
true of higher education as a whole. Partly for this reason rep- 
resentatives of the University, when appearing at legislative 
budget hearings, argued for the central nature of a University 
which requires resources and is not operating on an enrollment 
driven model. 

Given this unstable picture, President Patterson con- 
tinued, it would be extremely hazardous to state that in year X 
the University would have Y students enrolled. President 
Patterson then agreed with Trustee Troy's assertion that the sit- 
uation was one of "playing it by ear." Mr. Lynton agreed also 
but cautioned that this should not lead the Boston campus to play 
a passive role. The campus needed and intended to aggressively 
explore all possible sources of both traditional and non-tradi- 
tional students. Also, as had been said many times, the campus 
would have to abandon a number of the assumptions of which the 
campus was founded; for example, the 15-1 student/faculty ratio. 

Mr. Steamer said that another factor was that a larger 
number of students admitted to Boston simple did not make it. 
The attrition rate was terribly high. In the opinion of the Dir- 
ector of Admissions at Boston, if the campus were to have a stu- 
dent body next year that was as large as the present one, "D" 
students and rejects from other institutions would have to be ad- 
mitted. This option was rejected. Meanwhile the University 
spent from $300,000 to $400,000 per year on what was basically 
remedial work and it was not at all clear that the remediation 
was working. Fifty to sixty percent of the students admitted 
were of a very high quality; yet at the other end of the spectrum 
a great deal of money and effort was expended to help inadequately 
prepared students, and still many of these students dropped out. 
Chairman Marks said he could understand the complications this 
situation caused; however, the die was cast and there was general 
agreement that the campus did have a dual mission — to provide an 
academic setting for fully prepared students and for those stu- 
dents who need additional catch-up help. He said he was convinced 
that this dual mission was a permanent fixture. Mr. Steamer said 
he had no quarrel with this, he was merely saying that the cost 
was high and the results not very comforting. 



-7- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Fenstemacher said that one of the priorities ad- 
dressed by the Boston Long-Range Planning Committee was the 
broader nature of offering instruction to a diversely prepared 
student body. This included not only supportive assistance to 
those students who are capable of taking university level work 
but also to continue maintaining quality standards at the inter- 
mediate and honors levels. Thus, it could be said that resources 
such as Mr. Steamer was talking about were needed at all levels. 

Professor Schwartz asked leave to return to the subject 
of enrollment projections. Obviously, more work was needed in 
this area. One complicating factor here was that the three col- 
leges had not begun at the same time. The CAS was established 
much before the CPS and CPCS . Cutting the CAS back would have a 
permanent effect. It would not be matter of restricting growth, 
it would be the elimination of something that already existed. 
This placed constraints on the available options. Also, in the 
matter of educational demand, it should be noted that this was 
something that was influenced by a complex of factors — the flexi- 
bility of an academic program; extended day; lifelong education; 
the site of the classroom; the image of the institution, etc. Al 
of these had bearings on the ability to project enrollments. 

Given these complexities, Professor Schwartz continued, 
and given the fact that the CAS was an established institution, 
it would seem that some effort to examine existing parameters 
should be made, then to make predictions and decide how flexible 
one could be. It was one thing to tell CAS that it would be cut 
back and cut back drastically if it refused to be flexible, re- 
fused to offer new programs that might attract students, refused 
to cooperate with other institutions, refused to teach evening 
sessions and to teach at other local campuses. It was another 
thing to say the college would be cut back no matter what, without: 
consideration of the creative options that are available, options 
which could not only increase student demand but also serve older 
people, the community, and businesses in a very creative way. 
Boston had to be given some kind of estimate of what kind of de- 
mand would exist if the campus were more creative and offered a 
more varied array of programs. He concluded by noting that he 
would be very sad to see the CAS prematurely diminished, as it 
was the only place in the area where poor students could get a 
first class liberal arts education, which education was tradi- 
tionally the entree into positions of influence in society. 

Professor Martin said he wished to speak on another 
point which had been raised — the question of the difficulty of 
making hard decisions. There was no doubt that this was diffi- 
cult and it would well be the case that the Board might have to 
make such decisions. If this were the case, he hoped that the 
faculty could be consulted as much as possible; faculty should be 
aware of what options were being considered. He said that to 
make a major change without warning the Faculty could be very 
demoralizing. Chairman Marks said there was no question 



-8- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



but that the Committee felt very strongly that consultation would 
be an integral part of the process. Trustee Troy asked if the 
campus Long-Range Planning Committee, in its deliberations to 
date, had faced up to the hard questions that would have to be 
answered. Professor Martin said that the committee had nibbled 
at the bullet but had yet to bite it. These matters were on the 
committee's agenda. Trustee Troy said these issues would have to 
be addressed and it would be far better if they were decided 
within the campus rather than imposed from without. Chairman 
Marks said that it was his hope that the present spirit of cooper- 
ation would continue and that, in the process of making difficult 
decisions, neither the Board nor the Central Administration nor 
the faculty became the lone fall guy in the process. In other 
words, decisions would have to be made and they would be decisions 
which were in the best interests of the total campus community. 
With adequate communication and consultation and sensitivity 
this could be done without confrontation. 

Trustee Troy then said that the documentation for the 
meeting showed that demand for admission at the CPS was high and 
that demand at the CPCS was good, though not as intense as that 
at the CPS. He asked what the demand was at the CAS. Mr. 
Fenstemacher said that the number of freshman applications was 
about the same as last year. The number of transfer applications 
was up. This was largely due to the good work of the Admissions 
Office staff. It had been hoped that the number of freshman 
applicants would increase significantly; however this did not 
occur. Mr. Steamer said that Mr. Hartnagle, Director of Admissions , 
had said that there didn't seem to be any possibility of having 
6,000 good students enrolled in the coming year. He felt he 
could get 6,000 bodies but not 6,000 good students. Mr. Steamer 
said that a great deal of work had been' done to overcome this 
problem. Further efforts were needed and would be made. In 
response to requests, Mr. Fenstemacher said he would provide 
Ms. Pinck with figures on applications for the coming year and 
would provide Chairman Marks with a report on transfers for the 
last three years and with projections for the future. 



Professor Schwartz said that one possible reason why 
the applications picture was not brighter was that the CAS did 
not offer full degree programs during the evening hours. Mr. 
Steamer said that offering such programs was one of the options 
for the CAS survival. However, the faculty was reluctant to 
teach during the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. He said that UM/ 
Boston had fewer part-time students than any other major urban 
university in the United States. Part-time students represented 
a large untapped pool of applicants. 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



-9- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Marks said the campus should be aware that 
there was a possibility that certain of the programs offered 
might not reach critical mass. For example, the extended day 
program could have so few students as to be economically unjusti- 
fied. UK/Boston did, after all, face severe competition from 
other public institutions in the area. In developing policies 
for Boston, he continued, an attempt would be made to make the 
campus aware that there were other public institutions in the 
area and aware of what kinds of programs these institutions were 
offering. Ms. Pinck said she had seen a new 1202 Commission 
report on student demand throughout the state. The report 
contained no surprises — the student pool was not growing, the 
number of full-time students was decreasing, part-time were 
increasing, the average age was increasing. The report suggested 
to her that all universities in the Boston area might be reaching 
the point of saturation. Competition for students was becoming 
fierce. Harvard doubled and re-doubled its night time /weekend 
activities and had even established a deanship to oversee the 
operation. Boston State was also very active. All of these 
activities could be seen as a ten wheel vehicle — nighttime, 
daytime, weekend, part-time, full-time, older students, traditional 
and non-traditional, on campus, off campus. 

Referring to the earlier discussion about defending 
the University's budget before the Legislature on the basis of 
program costs rather than student numbers, Ms. Pinck said the 
proper way to defend the CAS budget would seem to be on the basis 
of the diversity of its student body. For example, a freshman 
class that cost $300,000 to $400,000 to bring up to speed was not 
a routine freshman class. 

Mr. Kaludis said it should be remembered that UM/Boston 
was still a developing institution and should not be treated as 
a fixed monolith which had been around for hundreds of years. 
The campus was still experimenting and learning. It was probable 
that the campus would have programs which would have difficulty 
in achieving a critical mass for some time to come. Such programs 
should be monitored regularly to see if they were working as 
planned and expected. This process would continue for some time 
and it would be unrealistic to expect the campus to be functionin 
properly within, say, one year. For example, per student costs 
were calculated on a very crude basis — that of dividing the 
yearly budget by the number of FTE students. Given more sophis- 
ticated cost analyses, the University could calculate the true 
per student costs of remedial work, of undersubscribed programs, 
etc. , and would be in a position to make more soundly based 
decisions . 

Mr. Lynton said this should be taken one step further 
and it should be recalled that UM/Boston developed out of one 
context and one model — that of daytime, full-time and traditional 
student type of institution, with a liberal arts emphasis. Part 



10- 



I 



I 



' 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



of Boston's future development needed to be a reconsideration of 
all the assumptions on which it was founded. If such reconsidera- 
tion led to the decision to move in a substantially different 
direction, such as a greatly enlarged extended-day program centered 
at 100 Arlington Street, then the University might well need 
venture capital. That is to say that for a period of some two 
to three years money would be required in order to establish a 
market which would ensure a critical mass for the programs 
offered. On the subject of extended-day, Ms. Baker said she had 
talked with many people who were interested in returning or 
beginning college in such a program and UM/Boston was the first 
choice of most of these people. Unfortunately, as had been 
pointed out, Boston offered almost no major programs during the 
extended day. Another problem, one that was the University's, 
was that extended-day students had to have access to student 
services, and providing these services was very costly. In 
response to a question by Trustee Troy, Ms. Pinck said it was her 
sense that the great rush of women to continuing education may 
have levelled off, but that there continued to be a slowly growing 
market for non-traditional, part-time education by older people oi 
both sexes. Also, it was her sense that these people were no 
longer interested in taking courses for purely cultural reasons 
and were now more interested in professional improvement or credit^ 
toward a degree. In line with this, Mr. Lynton said that while 
there was no de-emphasis on trying to attract individual students, 
there was a trend at both Amherst and Boston to work more closely 
with businesses, unions, and agencies in developing programs. An 
example of this was the Title XX program, which, as was usual in 
these arrangements, was a contractual relationship. The student 
pool for these arrangements was potentially quite large. 

Professor Schwartz said that both the CPS and the CPCS 
offered evening classes, most of which were taught in one three- 
hour session each week. The CAS facility felt that because of the 
nature of the subject material of their courses, one such concen- 
trated session per week was inadvisable, rather they preferred to 
have either two or three sessions per week. This was an example 
of an area where there was some flexibility. If it were seen that 
students preferred the concentrated, once-a-week sessions, then 
possibly the CAS faculty could offer programs which could be taught 
in that fashion. This was an area where small changes could have 
significant effects. These were things which the faculty had not 
really addressed as yet. 

President Patterson said this was an important point. 
If faculty could agree on this, then some very interesting things 
could happen. San Diego State University, for example, had a 
separate campus at Mexicali. The campus operates seven days a 
week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. The campus serves a rural, mainly 
Chicano population, many of whom could only attend in the evening 
or on a weekend. The faculty and the administration had agreed 
that a radical departure was necessary to serve the needs of these 
people. The campus, in addition to career-oriented programs, 
offered a full range of arts and science courses. 



-11- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



L-RP 

4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Cooley said it might be of use to re-examine and 
possibly restructure the day curriculum along similar lines. A 
possibility might be a series of two day blocks, e.g., Monday/ 
Tuesday, Friday/Saturday, wherein a working student could take a 
full program while attending classes only two days out of the 
week. Professor Schwartz said an earlier statement to the effect 
that faculty in general at the CAS were overwhelmingly reluctant 
to go into evening classes or other experimental ventures was not 
quite correct. This was a complex matter. There was no coherent 
program in the evening, with no attempts at recruitment or pub- 
licity, and when departments had offered evening classes, they 
wound up with enrollments of five or six students. The faculty 
were then penalized because the student/faculty ratio was so low. 
Thus, there was a vicious cycle. Faculty reluctance to offer 
courses in the evening was based mainly on the lack of student 
demand. Also, if faced with a choice of staff cutbacks or 
teaching in the evening, faculty would certainly opt for the latter, 

Mr. Steamer then asked if any thought had been given to 
increasing the percentage of out-of-state students. He had been 
told that Amherst received thousands of applications from highly 
qualified out-of-state students which had to be rejected because 
of the current limitations on the numbers of such students. If 
Amherst were to admit these students, it could result in more 
students applying to Boston. He said this solution had many things 
wrong with it, but it might solve the problem of lack of students 
Chairman Marks said this was almost a political matter, or one of 
legislative relations. Over the years the University had reduced 
the percentage of out-of-state students (the ratio was now 5 per- 
cent) because it made political sense to do so. Ms. Pinck said 
this was the situation all over the country. 

Professor Martin then asked leave to return to the 
matter of hard decisions. These were totally tied in with re- 
sources. It was his hope that the Committee could provide at 
least some guidance in this area. It was hard to convince faculty 
to bite a very hard bullet if they had a lurking suspicion that 
there was no real need to do so. If there were some way to settl^ 
the resource question prior to addressing the planning question, 
life would be much simpler. Ms. Pinck said she had suggested 
that the state go on a two-year budget cycle. The suggestion 
had died aborning. Chairman Marks said that the most rational 
plans could go astray because the University was a public insti- 
tution and the state had the ultimate say in budgetary matters. 



Chancellor Van Ummersen said there was one area where 
the Trustees could be of help — that of the reallocation of re- 
sources. She said she was not aware of any policies which dealt 
with phasing down and phasing out programs. If the Board could 
give some direction which spoke to programmatic concerns, critica 
needs and numbers of people involved, and indicated some way of 
reallocating so that the reallocations would not be seen as 
arbitrary campus decisions, it would be helpful. 



I 



I 



-12- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

This was something the campus had to face, particularly 
in the case of the CAS in terms of moving in new directions. 
Chairman Marks said the Trustees could respond to this request; 
however, this matter approached the very fine line separating op- 
erations from policy. The Trustees were determined to formulate 
policy only and to leave operations to the Central Administration 
and the campuses. This seemed to be a gray area where the Board 
could make a limited response. Trustee Troy said that he agreed 
that the Board should not involve itself in operational matters 
but only in policy. 

Trustee Troy then asked how specific the recommendations 
in the report of the campus long-range planning committee would 
be. The Trustees needed something that would be of real guidance 
and which could be seen as reflecting a campus consensus. He, 
for one, would not vote for a basic shift in policy if he felt 
ill-informed. President Patterson said he would also like to 
know to what extent the campus committee would be willing to ex- 
amine and consider outrageous hypotheses about the future of the 
campus. That is, new ways of looking at the total configuration 
of the campus rather than making minor adjustments to that which 
now existed. 

Professor Martin said that his committee, having pre- 
pared its draft report, had not just stopped. The Committee con- 
tinued to discuss priorities and had agreed to attack the problem 
of responding to level funding. If the Board wished the commit- 
tee to address other matters, this would be done. At present the 
process was in a consultation stage. The draft report had been 
sent to the deans and to the college planning committees and feed- 
back was being received. The report would soon go to all faculty 
and staff and a number of students. Also, an open hearing on the 
report would be held. 

One point of confusion, Professor Martin continued, was 
that the campus committee did not know what the Trustees' schedule 
was. There was uncertainty as to whether the campus should for- 
ward a report which contained a fair amount of the information 
requested by June. Professor Schwartz said that one problem here 
was that Professor Martin's University-wide committee was depen- 
dent upon the work of the long-range planning committees of each 
of the three colleges. 



Chairman Marks said he could understand these problems; 
however, these led to the risk of continual deferment. This risk 
was no longer acceptable at the Board level. What was needed at 
the very least was some sense of what the campus saw as possible 
and in what areas flexibility existed. Such material would be 
accepted by the Trustees with the understanding that deeper 
evaluations might well follow. In other words, the campus could 
not delay in order to develop an even more finely turned proposal. 
The situation was such that the Trustees would have to deal with 
the best that was available in order to inject a certain timeliness 



-13- 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



L-RP 
4/19/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

into the procedure. Professor Martin said that it was the sense 
of his committee that a good, useful document could be forwarded 
to the Trustees between the middle and end of May; Chairman Marks 
said this would be very helpful. He stressed that another aban- 
doned past practice was that of bringing information, however 
good, to the Board at the last minute. The Trustees needed time 
to consider that which they were expected to act on. 

Mr. Lynton said there was a related matter that should 
be mentioned. The campus, in the report, should not strive to 
produce a department by department, course by course, evaluation. 
What the campus should consider was the overall future configura- 
tion of the campus. As President Patterson had mentioned, con- 
sideration should be given to outrageous hypotheses. That is to 
say, the campus long-range planning committee should be prepared 
on a totally hypothetical, "what if," basis, to envision totally 
different configurations for the campus. For example, an upper 
division/graduate level campus, or an institution which offered 
30 percent of its instruction in rented quarters throughout the 
city. Professor Martin said that his committee had not used this 
approach. He noted that if the committee were to do this in 
isolation, it would be an exercise which would not carry much 
weight. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen then said that it would be most 
helpful if the planning process were far enough along to provide 
some sense of direction in time to be of use in contructing the 
FY1980 budget request. Chairman Marks thanked the campus repre- 
sentatives for their presentation. 

There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 



I 



I 



John F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary 
of the University 



-14- 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEES 
ON BUDGET AND FINANCE AND STUDENT AFFAIRS 

April 27, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 

Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Committees and Committees Staff : Trustees Dennis, Dion, Kassler, 
Krumsiek, Marks and 0' Sullivan; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop ; Treasurer Brand; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members: Trustees Crain, Breyer, McNeil, Okin 



and Shearer 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hogan, University Controller; Ms. Simmons, Assistant 
Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budgeting and Insti- 



tutional Studies; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Student Af- 
fairs 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance 



UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Controller 



Guests : Ms. Batiste, UM/Amherst; Mr. Bishop, Co-President, Stu- 



dent Government Association, UM/Amherst 

In the absence of both Chairmen, Trustee Marks called 
the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The first item dealt with was 
New Fees and Fee Increases FY79 — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-054) . It 
was noted that this was the first stage of establishing the bud- 
gets for fee based activities. If the new fees and fee increases 
were approved, the Fee-Based Budgets would be constructed and 
would be the subject of further Board action. Also, in the Am- 
herst document it was stated that the Student Activities fee for 
FY1979 would remain $64.00; this had changed, as the students had 
agreed to raise the fee to $72.00. 

In the ensuing discussion it was stated that the in- 
creases in the Boarding Hall fees were mainly to cover increases 
in labor costs and to phase in administrative costs; increases in; 
the cost of food were a factor but a minor one. This explained 
why the increases were the same regardless of the number of meals 
for which the students signed up. 

In discussing the 6 percent meals tax, it was noted that 
the tax was being collected. Further, there were efforts by both 



UM/Amherst — 
New Fees and 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-054) 



B&F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



UM/Boston — 
New Fees and 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-077) 



UM/ Worcester — 
New Fees and 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-076) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the students and Mr. Cass to have the tax repealed by the Legis- 
lature. Chairman Marks asked that a report on these efforts be 
available at the next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee 
and it was agreed that this would be done. 

In regard to transit facilities at Amherst, it was re- 
ported that the campus was at the point of concluding an agree- 
ment with the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority which would improv^ 
services. A capital grant of $1,500,000 had been received to be 
used to purchase buses and to construct a transit facility. It 
was hoped that the matter would be ready for Board approval in thi 
near future. Without further discussion it was moved, seconded ai{id 

VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
fee increases for UM/ Amherst as set forth in 
Doc. T78-054. 

The meeting then discussed New Fees and Fee Increases 
FY79 — UM/Boston (Doc. T78-077) . The Trustees were told that the 
only action requested was to recommend a fee increase for the 
Year in France Program. The increase was necessary because of 
inflation in France coupled with the declining value of the U.S. 
dollar. There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
fee increases for UM/Boston as set forth in 
Doc. T78-077. 

The meeting then discussed New Fees and Fee Increases 
FY79 — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-076) . The fees in question included 
what was essentially a housekeeping matter — the Medical School hac 
always charged a commencement fee of $10.00 and it had been as- 
sumed that this fee was authorized by a Board vote of 1966. The 
Board vote was now seen as being somewhat ambiguous in regard to 
the Medical School and it was felt that the matter should be made 
clear. Also, because of an accumulating surplus in the Maintenance 
Equipment Fund, a reduction of $15.00 in the fee was being re- 
quested. Finally, permission was being requested to establish a 
Student Services Fund to cover the costs of laboratory costs and 
certain student related printing costs. The fee for this fund 
would be $15.00; thus the overall cost to the students would re- 
main the same. 

In the discussion which followed it was agreed that the 
Trustees would be informed of the validity of the Medical School's 
assumption that monies from the Equipment Maintenance Fund could 
be used to purchase new equipment. 

In addition there was a discussion of the administration 
of funds such as the proposed Student Services Fund. The ultimate 
authority for the funds had been delegated by the Board to the 
campus administrations; however, the normal practice was to have 
heavy student input into the administration of the funds. 

-2- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The upshot of the discussion was that the minutes should show 
that it was the sense of the Trustees that further information 
about student input into the administration of funds should be 
gathered and that this information would be forwarded to the 
Committee on Student Affairs for the possible development of 
guidelines in this area. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
fee increases for UM/Worcester as set forth in 
Doc. T78-076. 

The meeting then turned to the item Nantucket Field 
Station — Acquisition of Surplus Federal Property (Doc. T78-079). 
It was recalled that the Trustees had authorized the administra- 
tion to apply for the subject property some time ago. The 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, present owner of 
the property, was now about to act on the applications. The 
indications were that HEW would look with favor on the Univer- 
sity's application, and while the University would not receive 
all the property it has applied for, it would receive a goodly 
portion thereof; that is, a six-unit residence facility and fif- 
teen acres of land. 

The Trustees were told that the vote before them did 
not subsume any new academic programs on the Island. Proposals 
for new programs would be brought to the Trustees at a later timd. 

The meeting was then told that the present severe 
limitation of housing hampered the development of programs at 
the Field Station. This situation not only hampered the summer 
program but also made it impossible to expand into the academic 
year. The new building would allow UM/Boston to house students 
and faculty at a very reasonable cost. It was pointed out that 
the net additional outlay, without any new programs, would be 
$10,000 per year. Considering the added benefits, this was a 
very low cost. 

Concern was expressed over the fact that several of 
the applications for the property had been made by Island organi- 
zations and the possibility that the University's success might 
lead to town-gown problems. It was noted that the Field Station 
and the residents of the Island shared a warm relationship and 
that at a town meeting concerning this issue the town had voted 
to recommend that the University's application be given prece- 
dence over that of all competitors. The discussion concluded 
when it was stated that the transfer was essentially a thirty 
year grant at the end of which the University would take title 
to the property. If at any time during the grant period the 
University no longer wanted the property it would be returned to 
HEW. 



B & F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



-3- 



Nantucket Field 
Station — 
Acquisition of 
Surplus Federal 
Property (Doc. 
T78-079) 



B & F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

It was then moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To recommend to the Board of Trustees that the 
President of the University be authorized to 
accept from the Federal Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare surplus Federal property 
on Nantucket Island as described in Doc. T78-079. 

UM/Worcester — The meeting then discussed Delegation of Authority to 

Delegation of Chancellor — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-081) . Blue Cross of Massa- 
Authority to chusetts annually negotiated reimbursement contracts throughout 
Chancellor the state and this delegation would authorize the Chancellor to 
(Doc. T78-081) sign such contracts now and in succeeding years. 

After a brief discussion concerning an amendment to the 
proposed vote, which was agreed to, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the Chancellor/Dean of the Medical Center to 
execute on behalf of the University in FY79 and 
subsequent years such Hospital Reimbursement 
Agreements with Blue Cross of Massachusetts, Inc., 
and/or its successor as are substantially similar 
in conceptual and reimbursement mechanisms as are 
now in effect and as may be required for partici- 
pation in the Blue Cross service plan whereby pay- 
ment for hospital care, treatment, and reimburse- 
ment for other health services are provided by 
Blue Cross to members of such plan. 

The meeting then dealt with Establishment of a Tissue 
Culture Trust Fund — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-080). It was stated 
that as the Teaching Hospital developed, a number of similar 
trust funds would have to be established. Central Administratior 
staff and staff from the Medical Center were exploring the pos- 
sibility of developing a more comprehensive approach to the 
establishment of trust funds so that the Board would not have to 
be involved each and every time. Also, the proposed vote dele- 
gated to the Chancellor the authority to set and modify fees. 



UM/Worcester — 
Establishment 
of Tissue 
Culture Trust 
Fund 
(Doc. T78-080) 



and 



There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees establish 
the University of Massachusetts/Worcester Tissue 
Culture Facility Trust Fund, which shall have as 
its purpose the providing of advanced level ser- 
vices in tissue culture and media preparation, 
as outlined in Doc. T78-080. 

The cost of the operation and maintenance of this 
self-supporting trust fund, which shall include 
the services of a senior tissue culture technician, 
materials, and equipment, shall be recovered from 
fees charged to users of the facility. 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The Chancellor of the Worcester campus is hereby 
delegated the authority to establish and modify 
from time to time at his discretion the fees for 
the use of said facility. 

The meeting then discussed Mandatory Student Housing 
Policy — UM/Amherst. Mr. Woodbury said this item was on the 
agenda in response to a request of the Trustees to provide infor- 
mation on Amherst's mandatory dining and housing policies, par- 
ticularly the latter. For a number of years the campus had 
wanted to drop the requirement that juniors had to live in the 
residence halls. What the University now had was a three year 
mandated residence in the dormitories that was unique among 
public higher education institutions in New England. 

It had long been agreed that the University should 
shift its emphasis to attracting people to the dormitories rather 
than forcing them to live there. 

Mr. Woodbury cautioned the Trustees that dropping the 
requirement regarding juniors could have unfortunate financial 
consequences. Further, projecting the dormitory occupancy rate 
would be even more "iffy" were the juniors allowed to live where 
they chose. It was a question of estimates hitched to other 
estimates. One firm projection was that a 90 percent plus occu- 
pancy rate was necessary to meet fixed costs, maintenance and 
capital improvement costs. 

Chairman Marks said it seemed correct to say that this 
was a risk situation — if the Board adopted a more flexible policy 
and if this led to an occupancy rate of less than 90 percent, 
then, potentially, the dormitory occupants would have to pay 
larger fees to meet the fixed costs, particularly those of re- 
paying the debts on the buildings. Mr. Woodbury said that any- 
thing below a 100 percent occupancy rate could raise the average 
charges for the dormitories. 

Trustee Krumsiek said another matter that had to be 
considered was the possible impact on the town of Amherst if a 
liberalized policy were adopted. If an additional 1,000 students 
chose to live off campus, this could result in increased costs to 
the town in providing services to them that were now provided by 
the University. He urged that cooperation and coordination with 
town officials precede any action by the University. 

Mr. Woodbury said that informal talks with town officia 
had been held and formal talks would be scheduled. Also, one 
factor that would ease the impact on the town was that the transi 
system was working well and students would not be forced to limit 
their choice of living quarters to Amherst proper. 



B & F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Mandatory 
Student Housing 
Policy 



-5- 



ls 



B & F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Bishop said he had studied this matter quite 
thoroughly from the student's point of view. While an influx 
of 1,000 students probably would place an additional burden on 
private housing in Amherst, this burden would not be so great 
as to drive up rental costs. Also, measures could be taken to 
counterbalance this. For example, at present some 1,000 juniors 
and sophomores were given exemptions from living on campus; the 
number of such exemptions could be reduced. 

There were a number of reasons why students favored 
the proposed change; for example, it seemed that most of the 
vandalism in the dormitories was caused by juniors and seniors 
who were frustrated after two years of dorm life. On the other 
hand, freshmen and sophomores were more content to live in the 
residence halls, as this was their first experience in living 
away from home. 

Mr. Bishop said a related matter that should be con- 
sidered was the need to study the possibility of separating man- 
datory housing from mandatory dining. Finally the students were 
aware that there was a risk involved in changing the present 
policy; however, the risk was minimal and should be seen in the 
light of the better living conditions in the dormitories that 
would probably result from a change in the policy. Two years 
ago the student body had defeated a motion to seek a change in 
the policy, partly because of a threatened bondholder law suit. 
Thus the students were fully aware of the risk factor in this 
issue. Ms. Batiste said this issue was one of great importance 
to the students and one which they had been debating for some 
years. As had been stated, the students were aware of the risk 
in changing the policy and had been working to find alternatives 
which would minimize the risk; for example, imposing a sur- 
charge for single rooms. 

Speaking to the matter of the mandatory board policy, 
Mr. Kaludis said that in his brief forays into the residence 
halls he had been struck by the heavy use of hot plates. He 
asked if it would be possible to adapt the dormitories to allow 
for meal preparation without the use of hot plates. Mr. Woodbur 
said that there were kitchens throughout the residence halls; 
however they were little used. It was his impression that the 
percentage of students opting for one or the other of the Board 
plans was very high. Thus if the Board's mandatory policy were 
changed, this would have little effect on the use of the kitchen^ 
and the hot plates. 

Trustee Kassler suggested that it might be useful to 
consider a one-year trial of a voluntary housing/dining policy 
for juniors or, failing this, to examine more closely the impact 
on the occupancy rates that would result from reducing the 
present exemptions. Mr. Bishop said that a trial, particularly 
a one-year trial, would create problems. For example, a large 



■6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



number of juniors would choose to live off campus in the first 
year; however, this would not be a reliable guide with which to 
project how many would so choose in succeeding years. A three 
to five year period would be necessary to obtain reliable figures 
Trustee Kassler said that an extended trial would not answer the 
concerns of the bondholders. 

Chairman Marks said that a straightforward policy 
change would seem to be preferable to an extended trial. If 
problems arose, assuming a policy change, they could be dealt 
with immediately. While it was probable that there would be an 
initial, large exodus of students, followed by a move back to 
the campus, it would be better to accept the risk involved. The 
students should realize that the number of current exemptions 
would be reduced and that efforts would be made to encourage 
students to live in the dormitories so that occupancy rates 
would remain at the necessary level. 

Trustee Kassler said it seemed that the situation was 
one wherein the Trustees were willing to change the present 
policy with the caveat that some students might have to "pay the 
piper." Ms. Batiste said that if the new policy were to be in 
effect as of September, 1978, the number of students choosing to 
live off campus would probably not be so great as had been pre- 
dicted. This is because the students would not have enough time 
to find alternative housing. 



Trustee Kassler asked if the University had the option 
of closing residence halls if the occupancy rate dropped below a 
certain level. Chairman Marks said that this was not a theo- 
retical question. Several dormitories were now being used for noi. 
residential purposes. Mr. Woodbury said that this option had 
its drawbacks — while there were savings in utility costs, the 
debt service charges still had to be met and there was a reduction 
in revenue from the buildings. 

Chairman Marks noted that the business of the joint 
meeting was now concluded. He called for the Report on Accounts 
Receivable System . The trustees were reminded that at the 
December, 1977, meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee they 
had been told of the selection of a firm to design a University- 
wide billings/accounts receivable system. The system was now 
being implemented in phases and it was expected that it would 
be fully operational by the fall of 1979. Much of the system 
will have been implemented prior to that date. 



The meeting then discussed the Report of Investment 
Counsel . Treasurer Brand said that the Investment Counsel had 
no recommendations for change in the portfolio. The value of th«^ 
portfolio was down $42,800, or 6.7 percent, as a result of the 
divestiture of South African holdings. This was not a serious 
drop. 



-7- 



B & F and 

SA 
4/27/78 



Report on 
Accounts 
Receivable 
System 



Report of 

Investment 

Counsel 



B & F and 

SA 

4/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. 



I 




JV*JL*K. 



Dorothy Eiqhel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



I 



-8- 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

May 3, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Pat- 
terson; Trustees Burack, Crain, Marks, Robertson, Shearer and 
Troy; Treasurer Brand; Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, 
recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Dennis and Spiller 

Other Trustees : Trustees Breyer, Kassler, Krumsiek, McNeil, 
McNulty, Popko and Sawtelle; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Sear- 
son, University Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery 

UM/Boston : Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs; 
Mr. Reno, Planning and Program Development Office 

The meeting came to order at 11:30 a.m. The first itemj 
dealt with was Amendment to Affirmative Action Policy (Doc. T72- 
155A) . President Patterson said the amendment was necessary to 
bring the policy into line with new federal regulations which ex-j 
tended affirmative action to the handicapped. In the course of 
the ensuing discussion it was agreed to amend the proposed vote 
to explicitly state that the Chancellors were to report on af- 
firmative action matters to the President on a regular basis. It 
was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees amend the 
Statement on Affirmative Action (Doc. T72-155 
adopted May 26, 1972) by striking out the first 
sentence of the third paragraph and inserting in 
place thereof the following: 

— "A full plan of affirmative action in hiring 
will include, as required by applicable fed- 
eral regulations, careful identification of 
areas where blacks, other minorities, handi- 
capped and women are underutilized or under- 
represented at the University, special 



Amendment to 
Affirmative 
Action Policy 
(Doc. T72-155A) 



Executive 
5/3/78 



UM/ Worcester — 
Report on Hos- 
pital By-laws 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

activities to recruit qualified personnel to 
remedy such conditions, assurance of equal 
pay for equal work, and promotion and train- 
ing policies which actively encourage upward 
mobility for underutilized and underrepresented 
groups . " 

And to further amend said Document T72-155 by strik- 
ing out the last sentence and inserting in place 
thereof the following: 

— "Therefore the Chancellors are directed to sub- 
mit annually to the President affirmative ac- 
tion plans or amendments thereto for review and 
approval. " 

The meeting then discussed Report on Hospital By-laws- - 
UM/Worcester . During the course of the discussion Dr. Caper 
agreed to modify the proposed By-laws to reflect these Trustee 
concerns : 

— to make explicit the physician's obligation to 
treat his patients humanely; 

— to clarify the differences between "Automatic 
Suspension" and "Temporary Suspension" by sepa- 
rating the two; and 

— to clarify that repeated suspensions of admit- 
ting privileges could lead to corrective action. 

Also, in response to Chairman Healey's request, Messrs. 
Kaludis and Searson agreed to prepare a memo for the Trustees 
outlining the legislative coverage of liability and what insur- 
ance policies were now in effect, the memo to cover the whole 
University system. 



Personnel 
Actions 



Actions 



The meeting then turned to the agenda item Personnel 
After a brief discussion it was noted that discussion 



of these actions would include matters of reputation and charac- 
ter and at 12:23 p.m. it was moved, seconded and on roll call 



VOTED 



To enter executive session 



Trustees Burack, Crain, Marks, Robertson, Shearer and 
Troy voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey and President 
Patterson. Trustees Dennis and Spiller were absent. 

The executive session concluded and the meeting was 
adjourned at 1:25 p.m. 

Dorothy Eio/t/el 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 




-2- 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

May 3, 1978; 1:30 p.m. 
Faculty Dining Rooms, A,B,C 
Medical Sciences Building 
University of Massachusetts/Worcester 



Committee and Committee Staff; Chairman Troy; President Patterson 



Trustees Breyer, Burack and Popko; Secretary Parks representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Member: Trustee Morgenthau 



Central Administration Staff : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for 
Academic Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chair- 
man Troy, who explained that the one item of agenda was approval 
of the Preliminary Graduation Lists — UM/Amherst, UM/Boston, and 
UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-084, T78-085, and T78-086 respectively). 

Chairman Troy informed the Committee that there were 
65 candidates for the degree of Doctor of Medicine at UM/Worcester 
3,092 candidates for undergraduate, 349 for Master's and 113 for 
Doctoral degrees, as well as the five candidates for certificates 
of Graduate Study» at UM/Amherst; and 1,131 undergraduate, and 27 
Master's degree candidates at UM/Boston. 



There was no discussion, and on motion made and seconded 



it was 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the May preliminary graduation lists at the 
University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
(Doc. T78-084), subject to the completion of 
all requirements as certified by the Recorder 
of the campus. 



and further 



VOTED: 



and finally 



VOTED: 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the June preliminary graduation list at the 
University of Massachusetts at Boston 
(Doc. T78-085), subject to the completion of 
all requirements as certified by the Recorder 
of the campus. 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the May preliminary graduation list at the 
University of Massachusetts at Worcester 
(Doc. T78-086), subject to the completion of 



UM/Amherst, 

UM/Boston, 

UM/Worcester- 

Approval of 

Preliminary 

Graduation 

Lists- (Doc. 

T78-084, 

T78-085, and 

T78-086) 



F & EP Comm. 
5/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

all requirements as certified by the Recorder 
of the campus. 

The meeting was then adjourned at 1:45 p.m. 




tcJbJL 



Dorothy Hichel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 



May 16, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Office of the President 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Spiller ; President 
Patterson; Trustee Sawtelle; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Burack, Dukakis, McNulty and 
Romer 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Cooley, Associate Vice President for Analytical Studies 
Mr. Meehan, Staff Administrator 

UM/Amherst: Mr. Littlefield, Director of Planning 

I ■ ■ 

UM/Boston: Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance; Mr. Prince, Director of Planning and Development 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance 

The meeting was called to order at 11:10 a.m. The 
first item dealt with was State Archives — Letter of Intent . 
Chairman Spiller said this was merely an informational item. 
The Board at its April 5, 1978, meeting had authorized the 
President to inform the Secretary of State of its intent to 
convey to the Commonwealth a parcel of land at Columbia Point 
for the State Archives. This President Patterson had done and 
the Trustees had received copies of the letter of intent. 

The Committee then discussed Deferred Maintenance 
Requirements . Mr. Kaludis said that the Amherst campus had com- 
piled a listing of such requirements and the estimated cost of 
refurbishing the academic buildings was $17,000,000. At the 
Boston and Worcester campuses there were some special needs. 
The Boston list contained several items which involved corrections 
made necessary by errors in earlier contracts. In addition 
there were items which would modify parts of the present physi- 
cal plant to fit academic programs. The most critical need was 
$750,000. Mr. Kaludis said that Worcester also had certain 
needs which Mr. Campbell would discuss later in the meeting. 

Mr. Kaludis said that one approach to the matter of 
deferred maintenance being considered was that of asking the 



State Archives 
Letter of In- 
tent 



Deferred 

Maintenance 

Requirements 



B&G 
5/16/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Legislature to provide a yearly capital outlay of from 3 to 5 
million dollars. Chairman Spiller, noting that the Legislature 
had mandated much of the required maintenance — for example, 
bringing the buildings in line with new building standards and 
providing handicapped access — said that therefore it seemed only 
proper to ask the Legislature for funding. 

Speaking of the problems on the Amherst campus, Mr. 
Littlefield said that in order to keep the campus in proper 
condition, a yearly expenditure of $1,300,000 was needed. The 
actual expenditure in recent years had been far less than that. 
If the campus were to receive $2,000,000 per year for maintenance 
over an eight-year period, the University would be able to catch 
up on deferred maintenance and would not slip further behind. 

Mr. Littlefield said the campus continued to operate, 
even with an inadequate maintenance budget; however, there were 
constant breakdowns throughout the system; and if the situation 
did not improve, one could say with reasonable certainty that 
within five or six years the campus would face very grave prob- 
lems. Mr. Kaludis said that it would be necessary to convert 
the state's perspective regarding capital outlay from a growth/ 
new construction perspective to one of renovation and remodelling 
Chairman Spiller said that a start had been made in this con- 
version process. The recent troubles with the lack of mainten- 
ance in the state hospitals had caused a great deal of rethinking 
on the part of the Legislature and the Administration. They 
would now probably be more receptive to funding maintenance 
requests. 

Trustee Sawtelle said he strongly endorsed maintenance 
of every structure. The money for maintenance should be avail- 
able year by year. If this were not done, in the long run, the 
cost would be multiplied. 

Speaking on the matter of energy conservation, Trustee 
Sawtelle asked if any of the buildings had been considered for 
retrofitting. Mr. Littlefield said the current proposals did 
not include this. The only consideration had been to keep the 
buildings operating. Energy conservation costs would be in 
addition to deferred maintenance. 



Speaking on the matter of deferred maintenance at 
UM/Boston, Mr. Baxter said the action now underway was the 
partial renovation of 100 Arlington Street. Complete renovation 
of the building had been discussed, but no definite plans had 
been made. Chairman Spiller asked how the renovation was proceeding, 
Mr. Meehan said the renovation was still on schedule with the 
exception of the replacement windows. It was expected that two 
floors would be completely renovated by July 1. 

Mr. Campbell, speaking for the Worcester campus, said 
the priority needs of the Medical Center were for the renovation 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of the existing student housing. This was primarily a single old 
^building which needed to be completely redone. 

Mr. Campbell said another matter the Trustees might 

wish to consider was the disposition of five house lots owned by 

the Medical Center which would probably never be used. Chairman 

Spiller said these lots had been purchased in an excess of zeal 
when the Worcester site was first chosen and that the Board would 

be well advised to sell them and return the proceeds of the sale 
to the state's general fund. 

The Committee then heard a report from Mr. Littlefield 
-on the continuation of the eight year long discussion with the 

town of Amherst concerning a section of North Pleasant Street 
fwhich bisected the campus. The Trustees would continue to be 

informed on these discussions. 



Mr. Kaludis then noted that the Trustees had received a 
report from the C. T. Main Engineering firm on the problems of 
the Tillson Power Plant. As further information was received, 
this would be conveyed to the Committee. 

There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. 




Dorothy EicQfel 

Assistant Secretary to the 

Board of Trustees 



B&G 
5/16/78 



■3- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



* 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
LONG-RANGE PLANNING 

May 17, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Marks; Trustees Popko 
and Troy; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members: Trustees Kassler, 0' Sullivan, Robertson 



and Sawtelle 

Central Administration: Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 



ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 



for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Broderick, Associate Dean 
and Director of Academic Support Services; Mr. Fenstemacher , 
Director, Office of Institutional Planning and Budget; Professor 
Costa, College of Arts and Sciences; Professor Taylor, College of 
Public and Community Service; Professor Martin, Faculty Represent- 
ative 

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. by 
Chairman Marks who asked for discussion of Missions and Goals — UM/ 
Boston. Chairman Marks said the purpose of the meeting was to 
conduct a general exploration of policy guidelines for the Boston 
campus for ultimate consideration by the full Board. It was the 
sense of a number of people that it would be pointless for Boston 
to develop programs in the absence of guidelines from the Board; 
that is, the operational mode should follow policy decisions. In 
the past, attempts had been made to develop policy and operational 
modes in parallel. This method was seen as a fast track. Un- 
fortunately it did not work. On the other hand, many of the resu] 
of past efforts were still valid and would be useful in the new 
process of developing broad guidelines for further development of 
the campus. Chairman Marks stressed that everyone involved in the 
process should understand this change in direction. 

President Patterson said that the issue of what the 
Board expected of the Boston campus had been raised several times 
in the past but had never been successfully resolved. This new 
effort was, to his knowledge, the first time the Board had ever 
indicated its clear intention to express its own desires in this 
area. This was a healthy thing, as it was necessary for the wel- 
fare of the enterprise at Boston. 

This intent had already resulted in a number of develop 
ments — a useful dialogue among the Trustees, the President and 
the campus; a draft statement by the UM/Boston long-range planning 
committee, which statement enabled the participants to reach a 



UM/Boston — 
Missions and 
Goals 



ts 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

broad consensus in a number of areas; and the identification by 
Chancellor Van Ummersen and her staff of a number of issues which 
the Committee and the campus should address. 

The document now before the Committee, Possible Policy 
Guidelines for Further Development of UM/Boston Goals and Missions, 



President Patterson continued, could be seen as one more piece of 
the dialogue. It was a working document, intended to provide for 
further discussion and to suggest guidelines for the development 
of plans, primarily by the campus, with every expectation that 
policy decisions would be made by the Board. 

Chairman Marks said it might be of use in this context 
to view the recent Board vote on graduate education as an example 
of the methodology of the planning process. The Faculty and 
Educational Policy Committee had, in effect, recommended that the 
Board affirm a policy of limited development of graduate edu- 
cation at Boston. The Board had agreed to do this, and in so 
doing had deliberately not addressed the details of how the campus 
was to make the new policy operational. The Board approved policy 
guidelines and expected the campus to put "flesh on the bones." 

Professor Martin said he was pleased to hear the 
document at hand referred to as a working document. While it 
addressed many issues on which there already was a consensus, 
there were others which would have to be examined fully. Chancel- 
lor Van Ummersen said it was very important that the campus and 
the Trustees saw the proposed guidelines as tentative. She sug- 
gested that the proposed vote be reworded to make this clear. 

President Patterson said it would be possible to do 
this. However, there was a danger that had to be avoided — that oi 
the campus returning to a state of endless discussion of these 
matters. The present ambiguities about the missions and goals of 
the Boston campus affected the University as a whole, not just the; 
campus itself. For example, it was hard to generate legislative 
support for resources for UM/Boston because of lack of clarity 
as to its role. These ambiguities could only be removed by broad 
policy decisions by the Board and this would have to be done 
within the foreseeable future. 

Mr. Lynton said that the concerns of Professor Martin 
and the Chancellor could perhaps be addressed in the minutes of 
the meeting rather than by changing the vote. What should be 
very clear was that the guidelines as written and as intended were 
directions for exploration. They were to be seen as questions 
rather than answers. Quite possibly the campus responses to cer- 
tain of the questions would be negative. 



Chairman Marks said he saw the campus' present positioi(i 
as a rather perilous one. It was operating without consensus at 
the Board level as to what its missions and goals were. As had 



-2- 



~ 



f 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

been pointed out, this lack of clarity led to lack of legislative 
support. And the campus attempted to allocate resources without 
a clear blueprint — this was an impossibility. The Board and the 
campus had to proceed. 

Chairman Marks suggested that each of the guidelines 
be discussed. If it became apparent that changes were required, 
this would be done. 

Professor Martin said that the campus long-range 
planning committee in discussing the document had established 
priorities. First, as had been noted, the document was seen as 
a working document. Secondly, the explicit goal of 8,800 FTE 
students had a number of implications that needed to be explored — 
it could be unrealistically high, as there might not be sufficient 
resources to reach that level; and by giving an appearance of 
growth it could take the edge off of hard planning in the re- 
allocation of resources. Chancellor Van Ummersen said that it was 
difficult to get the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences 
to think in terms of new programs — e.g., extended day — if it was 
the sense of faculty that there were possibilities for growth, 
however modest. The tendency of faculty would be to fall back on 
what had been done in the past rather than making hard decisions 
about what the future should be. 



Chancellor Van Ummersen said she had no real objection 
to the figure of 8,800. What needed to be spelled out more clearlly 
was the real need for reallocation and reconfiguration of programs 
in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chairman Marks then asked if 
the campus representatives or the Trustees had any objections to 
the general directions outlined in the document, namely: 

a That the University of Massachusetts at Boston is 

a University-level institution, with a responsibility 
toward the acquisition and dissemination of new 
knowledge and new educational methods, and toward 
the provision of high quality programs at the 
graduate and undergraduate level; 

• That it is an urban institution, with a responsibility 
toward providing access for the population of the 
Boston metropolitan area and toward being a source 
of applied research and technical assistance for 
Boston-area individuals, institutions, and agencies; 

• That it has missions and goals distinct from and 
complementary to those of other public institutions 
of higher education in the Boston area. 

Trustee Troy said he preferred the Chancellor's 
earlier version, to the effect that UM/Boston was a good univer- 
sity in an urban setting. 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



-3- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor Martin said there was a tension in the 
statement that UM/Boston had "missions and goals distinct from 
and complementary to those of other public institutions in the 
area." If the campus were to make its programs completely com- 
plementary to those of other institutions, this would conflict 
with the campus' need to offer a program that was solid enough 
to offer a fine liberal arts education. President Patterson said 
it was not the intent of the statement to say that all of Boston's 
missions and goals were to be distinct and complementary. 

Chairman Marks said that there was agreement that UM/ 
Boston should offer a full and rich array of courses. However, 
the campus should be aware of the offerings of other public 
institutions in the area and should not engage in mindless dupli- 
cation of offerings. 

In the matter of the optimal mix between the liberal 
arts and the professional programs, Trustee Troy asked if there 
had been any study made to show the effect of students from the 
College of Professional Studies enrolling in the College of Arts 
and Sciences courses. Mr. Fenstemacher said that the number of 
such students was growing and the campus was monitoring the effect 
of this on the teaching loads of the College of Arts and Sciences 
faculty and was discussing the redeployment of the College of 
Arts and Sciences faculty to meet the increased demand. 

The Committee then discussed the proposed guidelines. 
Speaking of Guideline 1 — that there should be a thorough assess- 
ment of the current as well as anticipated application pool for 
full-time students entering as freshmen — Professor Martin said a 
question had been raised by the explanatory notes to the guideline 
The second note spoke of the admissions criteria for potentially 
qualified but inadequately prepared students. He asked if this 
referred to special admissions programs, wherein efforts were made 
to recruit students who hadn't done very well but who had potential 
That is, was there to be a two tiered admissions policy? Mr. 
Lynton said that any urban university had to have a two or multi- 
tiered admissions policy. As long as UM/Boston recruited from 
inner city high schools, it would necessarily have students who 
showed potential but did not necessarily have adequate background 
It would be desirable to establish criteria, however difficult 
this proved be, to decide which students could be admitted and 
which could not. 

Mr. Lynton said that this did not refer to the present 
special departmental programs on campus, nor was it meant to en- 
courage the continuing separation of prepared and unprepared 
students. There were real questions as to the operational validity 
of separating the two. 

Professor Taylor said that he was somewhat concerned 
about speaking of a two-tiered admissions policy — one for qualified 
and one for the less qualified. It would be preferable to speak 
of a multi-tiered policy which accommodated a diversity of students 



•4- 



I 



i 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Marks agreed, saying that this would clarify and validate 
the concept that the campus was not on a single track; rather it 
was on a diverse one. 

Professor Costa asked if this implied a multi-tiered 
set of programs or would all students enter into the same program 
Chairman Marks said that the question of the resources necessary 
to bring unprepared students up to speed would have to be addres- 
sed. Professor Costa said that one of the things that made it 
hard for him to understand what was being discussed was that he 
was unable to reconcile the need for a clear definition of admis- 
sions criteria with the seeming inability to distinguish clearly 
between qualified and unqualified students. Trustee Troy said 
the assumption would be that every student would be at least po- 
tentially qualified, though some might need help in certain areas. 
The campus would not admit an unqualified student. Professor 
Costa said it would be useful if the guidelines included a state- 
ment reaffirming the need to maintain academic standards. Trustee 
Troy said it was his understanding that this was implied through- 
out the document . 

Mr. Lynton said it was important to realize that when 
the Board acted, it would vote only on the guidelines per se. 
Most of the text of the document was essentially a gloss. Each 
word in the gloss was not of crucial importance. 



Speaking of the section in the document wherein it was 
suggested that the campus estimate potential student interest in 
various major areas of study, Trustee Troy said that the campus 
should be flexible in this area and should realize that some stu- 
dents in the course of their university careers change their aca- 
demic goals. Chairman Marks said he hoped that everyone understood 
that all the Board wanted at present was a general framework. 
There would have to be a great deal of fleshing out and elabora- 
tion at the campus level. To attempt to elaborate at this junc- 
ture would be to run the risk of constant deferral, which course 
was no longer acceptable. President Patterson said that if the 
campus were to follow the behest of Guideline 1, this would al- 
most automatically lead to the need to define specifics such as 
admissions criteria. Mr. Fenstemacher said this exercise would 
also lead to the University's asking questions which had to be 
answered if the University intended to admit students who needed 
remedial help, it would have to decide how many such students 
would be admitted and what proportion of available resources 
would be devoted to him. 

Chairman Marks said that one of the purposes of the 
guidelines was to enable the campus to show how it differed from 
other public institutions both in terms of quality and of thrust. 
If this were not done, the University would be seen as part of a 
hodgepodge of public institutions. The guidelines were, in effect, 
a mandate to Boston to emerge as a full scale university. 

-5- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor Costa said he was gratified to hear this and that it 
should be said even more forcefully and clearly. The statement ir 
the document to the effect the UM/Boston 's mission was to provide 
for the merging of egalitarianism, broadly considered, and a qual- 
ity education without sacrificing one or the other, should be 
stated even more clearly. Chairman Marks said this refining of 
the role of UM/Boston was going on in the context of the recently 
established special commission on the reorganization of public 
higher education: It was safe to predict that the commission 
would view UM/Boston as one of 32 institutions in the state; there- 
fore, the University would have to act with firmness and dispatch 
in defining its role as one which is distinct from that of the 
other segments of higher education, so that the commission would 
realize that UM/Boston was to be and should become a full scale 
university and should have the resources necessary to accomplish 
this. Mr. Lynton said that in developing a role for UM/Boston, 
it could be said that the requisite general philosophic statements 
were now agreed upon. It was now time to move to a reasonable de- 
gree of specificity. For example, the campus should be able to 
say that the coming year, the University will have X number of 
potentially qualified but inadequately prepared applicants and 
the remediation for these students will cost Y dollars. Such 
specifics would be useful not only in making a presentation to 
the special commission but would be necessary to the Board in its 
deliberations on the budget. 

Chairman Marks then called for discussion on Guideline 
2 — to enlarge upper division enrollment, with the ultimate goal 
of increasing the proportion of upper division FTE enrollment to 
at least 60 percent and perhaps 70 percent. President Patterson 
said the present Trustee guideline was 60/40. One reason for the 
increased ratio of upper division students was to emphasize that 
the Boston campus was not a state or community college. Also, 
given the quality of the faculty and the number of state and com- 
munity colleges in the area, it could be argued that the campus 
should be an upper division/graduate institution. The guideline 
also related to the need for Boston to articulate closely with 
the state and community colleges in regard to the issue of prep- 
aration of entering students. There was a vast difference in 
quality between the upper division students at Boston, who were 
as good as any students anywhere, and the lower division students, 
some of who left something to be desired. The proposed 70/30 ratijo 
was the way to best utilize the faculty. Trustee Troy said this 
was obviously a desirable thing but he questioned its feasibility. 
President Patterson said that this question was unanswerable for 
a number of reasons. For example, in talking with staff from the 
community colleges it became apparent that the University was mak- 
ing almost no effort to encourage community college students to 
transfer to UM/Boston. The private sector was making a very deter- 
mined and well planned effort to obtain transfer students. 

Chairman Marks said that if such an effort were under- 
taken and if it were successful, the inevitable question of where 
to fund the resources to accommodate the students would arise. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said it would go even further that that. 
New programs would also have to be initiated. 

-6- 



t 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy asked where the campus stood at present in 
regard to the 60/40 ratio. Mr. Fenstemacher said there were a 
number of factors that made achieving the mandated ratio difficult 
The attrition rate was high — between 17 to 25 percent per semester). 
While there was a major pool of evening students, this pool was 
virtually untapped because the University offered so few programs 
in the evening. Chairman Marks said the operative words in the 
guidelines were "ultimate goal." This was the direction in which 
the campus was expected to move and the means of achieving the 
goal would follow from that. 

The meeting then discussed Guideline 3 — that the campus 
should intensify its efforts to increase part-time enrollment at 
all levels, with the ultimate goal of bringing the proportion of 
part-time students to 20-50 percent of the total FTE enrollment. 
Professor Martin said he had no objection to this; however, it 
would be of help to the campus long-range planning committee to 
know of the rationale for this guideline, which envisioned doublirjg 
the present part-time enrollment. 

President Patterson said that this guideline gave 
recognition to the fact that part-time students were another 
relatively untapped pool of students whose needs were not being 
met. There was evidence from across the country that many public 
institutions were redesigning programs to meet the needs of part- 
time students. For example, the Calexico branch of the University 
of San Diego operated from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week. 
Since the enrollment picture at UM/Boston was somewhat foggy, this 
was an area the campus might wish to consider. 

Mr. Steamer said it was essential that the campus take 
action. Boston's part-time enrollment was the lowest of any of 
the 13 urban universities who are members of the Council of Urban 
Public Universities. In fact some of the others had fewer full- 
time students than part-time students. Part of the urban mission 
was to be available to those who wanted to take one or two courses 
Trustee Popko said another aspect of this was that many people whc 
were employed have educational benefits. At present these benefit 
were underutilized. This was an area of opportunity. 

Chairman Marks said that a spinoff of the discussion 
was that an increasingly sharper profile of what the Boston campus 
was, and what it wanted to be, was beginning to emerge. These 
perceptions plus a clear mandate were necessary to get the require 
resources from the Legislature. Without them the campus would be 
defenseless . 



Also, Chairman Marks continued, the Committee and the 
campus were working in the context of long-range planning. Such 
plans were subject to adjustment: course corrections become 
necessary at times. For example, if, for whatever reason, the 
campus could not tap the student pool of community college 
graduates, then other pools would have to be sought. In other 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



-7- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

words, if a proposed solution was unrealistic, it would not do 
to simply walk away from the problem. Efforts should be made to 
find different approaches. 

The committee then discussed Guideline 4 — that the 
campus, together with the central administration, should undertake 
a systematic exploration of optimal complementarity, as well as 
possible cooperative and consortial arrangements, with Boston 
State College and the Massachusetts College of Art as well as witt 
other public and private institutions. President Patterson said 
the suggestion here was self-evident. He said the Trustees shoulc 
know that UM/Boston, Boston State College and three community 
colleges had made a grant proposal to the Ford Foundation. The 
grant, if forthcoming, would provide funds to explore the possib- 
ilities of inter-institutional collaboration. There were many 
people who felt that the public institutions in the Boston area 
should make greater efforts to cooperate and not be seen as 
ignoring one another or as competitors. 

Chairman Marks noted that the Massachusetts College of 
Art had received a goodly amount of start up money. It was obvious 
that arrangements should be made to enable UM/Boston students to 
take courses at the College of Art, as there was no way Boston 
could justify or afford to duplicate the studio facilities and 
advanced courses at the College. Such arrangements would show 
that while Boston wished to develop, it would not do so by dupli- 
cating locally available resources in a single-minded fashion. 
Mr. Lynton pointed out that these arrangements would be a two- 
way street — students from the College of Art could take courses 
at the University. 

President Patterson said that the suggested explorations 
should not be limited to administrative arrangements but should 
extend to cooperation at the faculty level. He cited the example 
of the Five Colleges Incorporated at Amherst, where arrangements 
included joint course offerings, degree programs and Five College^ , 
Inc. academic departments. 

In response to Professor Taylor's question as to why 
the Guidelines specifically named Massachusetts College of Art 
and Boston State College, Chairman Marks said it was important 
to remember that the University had opposed earlier proposals 
for the reorganization of public higher education. This opposition 
stemmed, at least in part, from the belief that the reorganization 
would have resulted in the homogenization of UM/Boston, Boston 
State and the College of Art. UM/Boston, while continuing its 
efforts to retain its identity and to develop, had to give clear 
notice that it was aware of the existence of Boston State and the 
College of Art; that it recognized their particular missions; and 
that in planning the campus took the two Colleges into account. 
Trustee Troy said that this would also demonstrate that the 
University was aware of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication 
of course offerings and was prepared to take steps to prevent it 
Ms. Baker said that seemingly minor matters could have an impact 



I 



I 



-8- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

on cooperative ventures. For example, the cooperative arrange- 
ment with Northeastern University was a good thing. However, 
transportation to Northeastern from the Harbor campus was so di- 
ficult that few students took advantage of it. 

The discussion then turned to the last three guidelines 
— Guideline 5: that on the basis of some of the above considera- 
tions, the campus should generate a development plan for new grad- 
uate programs as well as for new undergraduate concentrations and 
programs if appropriate; Guideline 6: that the campus should em- 
phasize the development of a many-sided but coherent urban program 
as a major element in the provision of educational and technical 
assistance services to the greater Boston community; and Guideline 
7: that the campus should emphasize the development of special 
programs and activities related to and taking full advantage of 
the Kennedy Library and State Archives. 

President Patterson said that the suggestions were, in 
one way or another, already facts of life. Guideline 5 reflected 
to some extent the recent work of the Committee on Faculty and Ed- 
ucational Policy with regard to graduate education. In the case 
of Guideline 6, Chancellor Van Ummersen and her staff were ac- 
tively exploring the establishment of an urban research institute 
and several related matters. Guideline 7 simply reflected the 
reality of the presence of the Kennedy Library and the State Ar- 
chives. 



Trustee Troy said that while he accepted the desirability 
of the urban research and service activities suggested in Guideline 
6, he felt that the cost of these activities should be carefully 
studied. The campus should spread itself to the point where the 
central quality of the institution would be endangered. President 
Patterson said this was a necessary caution. However, the guide- 
line provided for the creation of new concentrations of current 
activities without any additional cost. Such concentrations could 
have a beneficial impact and increase the visibility of the campus. 
There was also the possibility that the concentrations could gen- 
erate resources. 



Speaking of the suggestion in Guideline 7 that special 
activities related to the Kennedy Library and the State Archives 
be developed, Chancellor Van Ummersen said that this was now being 
done in the case of the Kennedy Library. The Institute of Learn- 
ing and Teaching had collaborated with the Library staff in creat- 
ing instructional packages for elementary and secondary school 
teachers. The Media Center was working with the Library to deter- 
mine how best to exploit the Library's extensive film collection. 
In addition, there was a Kennedy Library Committee which was ex- 
amining ways of how best to articulate the activities of the Li- 
brary and the campus. 



President Patterson said these were healty developments. 
However, if would be incorrect to say that the University was doing 

-9- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



L-RP 

5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

enough. It was immensely important that the campus leadership 
take an even more active role in this regard and that resources 
be sought to increase the level of activity. The President said 
he had discussed with Senator Kennedy the possibility of seeking 
outside funding, possibly from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, to foster these developments. The Senator was very 
much interested and had promised full support. Guideline 7 was 
crucial to the future of the University. 

Chairman Marks said he wished to return to the subject 
of the 8,800 enrollment figure. Chancellor Van Ummersen suggestec 
that the policy guidelines document be amended by deleting the 
reference to the actual figure. The present Board mandate of 
9,000 FTE enrollment would still be in effect. Mr. Kaludis said 
that in earlier discussions it had been pointed out that in con- 
structing the FY1980 budget request, it would be necessary to 
discuss actual numbers of students for tactical reasons. As was 
perhaps known, the fall 1978 enrollment figures for UM/Boston 
would not be pleasant ones. There would have to be a number 
which could be cited as the goal toward which the campus was as- 
piring. To his mind 8,800 was as good as any. President 
Patterson seconded this. He said that it was tactically necessary 
to have some dimension for anticipated growth in defending the 
budget . 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that this made it all the 
more important that the document contain a strong statement about 
growth and the need to reallocate resources in order to create 
new programs. The document should in some fashion indicate that 
present resources would have to be allocated in new ways. Mr. 
Steamer said that the campus had to have some kind of growth fig- 
ure for the CPS and CPCS, whether or not the overall enrollment 
increased. If the two colleges were to grow, it would be at the 
expense of the CAS. Chairman Marks said that this was a campus 
matter not a Board one. The Trustees were attempting to develop 
a policy structure within which the campuses would devise the 
operational structure. 

In the matter of a set number for projected enrollments, 
Chairman Marks said he agreed that a number was necessary. He 
cautioned that any such number would, of necessity, be arrived at 
in less than a scientific way. In the absence of a number, the 
Board would be unable to focus. Also, it should be noted that 
the 8,800 was the end of a five-year cycle, and there was no ex- 
pectation that growth would occur in regular increments during 
the cycle. He agreed with Professor Martin's statement that if 
the number were too large and if there were no model indicating 
how the growth would occur, then faculty would not be convinced 
of the need for reallocation. Mr. Lynton said it should be noted 
that a determined effort to reverse the present application and 
enrollment trends was necessary just to maintain resources at the 
present level, let alone gaining added ones. There was a real 
danger that the campus could receive a substantial cut in support. 



-10- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy asked for information about the admissions 
picture for September, 1978. Mr. Fenstemacher said that freshman 
applications were down 9 percent from 1977. Transfer applications 
were slightly higher. Applications were still coming in and being 
accepted. In his opinion the campus would be hard pressed to 
equal last year's enrollment of 6,800 FTE students. This situa- 
tion meant that a great deal of rethinking about the present con- 
figuration of the CAS would have to take place during the summer. 
Mr. Fenstemacher concluded by noting his belief that if faculty 
were aware of the 8,800 figure, this would release the pressure 
needed to face up to reallocation. 

Chairman Marks said that a given number had meaning only 
as a tool. The meaning behind the 8,800 number was that it did 
not presume a spiraling growth. The number needed to be fleshed 
out by everyone concerned with the fate of the Boston campus. The 
number would have to be explained to those involved. If this were 
done properly the number would not be misused. Chancellor Van 
Ummersen said that this made it imperative that the explantory 
note to Guildeline 5 clearly state that support for new programs 
and concentrations must come from existing resources. It was 
agreed that this would be done. 

Professor Martin then said that the current enrollment 
picture had forced the CAS faculty to consider reallocations, 
modes of operation and configurations, and as had been suggested 
at an earlier Committee meeting, to consider outrageous hypotheses 
He said that this new willingness would not change and would not 
be affected by the 8,800 figure. 

Mr. Lynton asked leave to speak of the matter of the 
timing of the submission of the campus report. The date for sub- 
mission in the proposed vote was September 15; however, it would 
be very useful if a first draft, indicating some principal issues 
and internal reallocations could be available somewhat earlier. 
Early in September, the Budget and Finance Committee would con- 
sider the operating budget, with Board action to follow at its 
September meeting, and it would seem to be one of the functions 
jof the Long-Range Planning Committee to review, as much as pos- 
sible, long range directions for the campus prior to the discus- 
sions on the operating budget. If the first draft could be 
available for a Long-Range Planning meeting in mid-August, this 
would be one further step in the dialogue. The purpose of the 
meeting would not be to come to any final conclusions. 



Mr. Broderick said that the schedule was of importance 
to the campus long-range planning committee. The committee had 
been meeting for a year and a half and it could be said that the 
greater part of its operation was hidden from the Trustees. This 
part consisted of thorough self-studies of all administrative and 
academic units of the University. These self -studies were now com- 
plete. Outside evaluators had been called in at the lower level 
and a survey of all administrative units by outside evaluators had 

-11- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

just been completed. Additionally, an outside evaluation of the 
University as a whole would soon begin. Mr. Broderick said he 
felt that the dialogue was going to take more time than Mr. Lyntor. 
had suggested. 

What UM/Boston became, Mr. Broderick continued, would 
depend not so much on logical and coherent policy statements, but 
on the capacity of the campus to understand and accept them and 
then implement them. This would take time. The campus committee 
intended to submit a complete long-range report to the campus by 
September 1. However, the Chancellor would need some time to pre-' 
pare a report which reflected the views of the whole campus for 
submission to the President. Mr. Lynton said this was an extremely 
important step; however, it could be said that it was two or three 
steps ahead of what he had suggested. His thought was that there 
could be an intermediate stage in the dialogue prior to submissior 
of the full report. The campus is updating its operating budget 
for FY1979 and its maintenance budget for FY1980 would explicitly 
make decisions as to which directions it wishes to take. This 
would be to some extent a reflection of the proposed guidelines. 

Chairman Marks noted that the guidelines were loose and 
general and were deliberately so. This was because this was the 
first time these matters had been addressed by the Board. The as- 
sumption was that if the Board would at least come to grips with 
the unresolved policy issues regarding UM/Boston, this would help 
the campus by establishing, at the Board level, the nature of the 
academic enterprise at Boston. 

Professor Taylor said it was his understanding that the 
proposed guidelines document was a working paper and that the Sep- 
tember 15 campus report would not be cast in stone. That is, it 
would be subject to further review and revision by the campus. 
Chairman Marks said that both understandings were correct. Refer- 
ring to the September 15 report, he assured those present that no 
one would be endangered on the basis of anything therein. 

Mr. Lynton said it was important to note that the campus 
would be having a reaccreditation visit in October. One purpose 
of such a visit was to give the institution an outside reaction tc 
its plans and directions. It was all but certain that the campus 
and the Board would want to rethink certain matters on the basis 
of the report of the reaccreditation committee. Thus, it could 
be seen that this was without question an ongoing process. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen asked Mr. Lynton for elaboratior 
on the interim report he had suggested. Mr. Lynton said that at 
a certain point in July the campus administration would know its 
FY1979 operating budget would be. By far the greatest part of 
the X million dollars in the budget would be in a sense, ear- 
marked funds and the campus administration would not have any 
discretion as to how they would be used. However, 



-12- 



I 



I 



» 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

there would be a certain portion of unassigned funds, and the 
campus administration would have to decide how to use these funds, 
whether that be for extended day programs or reducing the average 
size of freshmen classes, or what have you. These decisions would 
give the Trustees a sense of the priorities of the campus and would 
affect the FY 1980 maintenance budget request. 

Mr. Lynton said he was suggesting that in mid-August, 
prior to Budget and Finance and Board consideration of the operat- 
ing budget, the campus prepare for the President and the Long- 
Range Planning Committee a brief report indicating an initial set 
of its priorities, responses and reactions within the guidelines. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said that she could see the reasoning for 
this, but mid-August did seem to be cutting things rather close. 
Mr. Lynton said that everyone was caught up in the same very tight 
calendar. Trustee Troy said he was concerned that this suggestion 
though modest, might put the campus administration into a straight 
jacket. He said the administration should be given some discreticn 
in responding to this. The campus should not be rushed into making 
decisions. 

Chancellor Marks said that if the campus were to come 
to finite conclusions too quickly, it would be putting itself in 
a straight jacket, which could do more harm than good. On the 
other hand, the campus could not endlessly defer action; also the 
budget cycle proceeded inexorably. He suggested that the campus, 
in its budget process, attempt to relate budgetary decisions to 
the guidelines. This would serve as an indication of the direction 
in which the campus wished to move. The conclusions in the pre- 
liminary report would be subject to change. 

Chairman Marks then asked the campus representatives 
if they found anything in the guidelines to be troublesome — in 
other words, were they in general agreement with the guidelines? 
Professor Martin said he wasn't troubled at all. What he did see 
was that there was a great deal of information gathering to be 
done. He doubted that the Chancellor had sufficient staff to do 
all that was to be done. President Patterson suggested several 
campus manpower sources that might be tapped and said that Centra] 
Administration staff would help. 

Trustee Troy then said that he had noticed one rather 
large assumption that had permeated the day's discussion in 
talking about the student population. For example, many had talked 
a good deal and rather glibly about growth through the extended- 
day program. He asked if such growth was feasible given the 
location of the campus, and the image of the campus, and its prob- 
lems of security. Chancellor Van Ummersen said that 100 Arlingtor 
would have to be used more than it now was. The Harbor Campus 
should appeal to students who travel to the South Shore by car 
rather than by MTA. In response to Trustee Troy's question, Mr. 
Lynton said there was space for growth at 100 Arlington but its 
use was dependent upon renovation. 



-13- 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



L-RP 
5/17/78 



78194 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor Broderick said it should be noted that the 
spring before coming to the Harbor Campus there were 7,900 
applications for admissions; the spring after coming to the campus 
there were 4,600 applications. The University had never recovered 
this year the number of applications might climb slowly to the 
latter figure. As was known, this was the major problem facing 
UM/Boston. 

Professor Broderick said that the image of the campus 
would have to be changed. The presence of the Kennedy Library 
would help in this regard. A number of matters relating to adver- 
tising had to be addressed. Funds should be found to place a 
marker on Morrissey Boulevard identifying the University. Finally 
something should be done to make the MTA Columbia Station stop 
less grim. 

President Patterson agreed that one thing of crucial 
importance was the visual impression that the Harbor Campus pre- 
sented. One thing that would help a great deal would be to light 
the campus more during the fall and winter terms. This might seen 
to be a trivial suggestion, but if one accepted the common opinior 
that the Harbor Campus was a dangerous place, this would only be 
reinforced by seeing a virtually unlit campus. President Patterson 
said that one of the spinoffs of the recent spring festival at 
the campus was the realization that the forbidding exterior of the 
buildings could be relieved simply by using banners and lights. 
Much work remains to be done in this regard. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the seven preliminary guidelines presented in 
Trustee Document T78-088 for use in planning for 
the University of Massachusetts at Boston, and 
that the Board concur with the enrollment plan- 
ning expectation of a maximum of 8,800 FTE students 
for 1978-1983 as stated therein. It is understood 
that said guidelines will be reflected in the 
planning report to be presented by the Chancellor 
to the Trustee Committee and the President by 
September 15, 1978. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee, and the meeting adjourned at 12:32 p.m. 



I 



I 




John F. Miller, 

Assistant to the Secretary 



-14- 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF 
TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON AUDITS 

May 18, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Dennis, Trustee Crain; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent: Trustee Fielding 



Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business Services; 
Mr. Hogan, University Controller 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director of Budgeting and Institutional 
Studies 

UM/ Boston: Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 



Finance; Mr. Drinkwater, Controller 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Controller; Mr. Fellner, Director of 
Fiscal Affairs 

Guest : Mr. Rodnite, Director of Auditing, University of Texas, 



Austin 

The meeting came to order at 11:10 a.m. The first 
item discussed was Status Report on Search for Director of Auditin 



The Committee was told that two of the finalists for the position 
had withdrawn their names. A third finalist, one who had a great 
deal of relevant experience at the University of Texas was now 
the leading candidate. The hope was expressed that the position 
could be filled within thirty days. At this point, Mr. Rodnite 
entered the room and was introduced. 

The meeting then discussed Internal Audits FY1977-78 — 
UM/Boston. The Committee was told that the trust funds in questio^i 
were Financial Aid, Student Activities and Parking and Trans- 
portation. These were the beginnings of a University-wide audit 
and had been given priority, as they were in the areas of maximum 
exposure. The Student Activities Trust Fund represented a unique 
problem — for a variety of reasons, it had been outside the 
campus's accounting system. It was now being phased into the 
system. It was expected that this would be completed by July 1, 
1978. 

In the case of all three audits the campus administratioi 
lad met with the auditors prior to the beginning of the audit 
and had identified what were considered problem areas. In most 
instances, the problems had been cleared up by the time the 
auditors had completed their work. 



Status 
Report on 
Search for 
Director of 
Auditing 



UM/Boston— 
Internal 
Audits 
FY1977-78 



Audits 
5/18/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The Committee was told that the Parking and Transportation 
Trust Fund was the only fund being considered for an external 
audit and there was some doubt if this was really necessary. Whille 
it was a large cash operation, it was tightly controlled and there, 
were instances where audits cost a great deal more than the savingis 
that they generated. It was pointed out that while this might be 
a valid argument, this did not relieve the administration of any 
organization of the responsibility to create a climate which 
ensured that personnel did not fall into traps. These matters 
could not be viewed from the view of cost-returns only. 

In the case of the audit of the Bursar's Office the 
administration had implemented all of the auditor's recommendatiods 
except one — that of having tellers sign when receiving a cash 
drawer. It was felt that since the Bursar kept records as to 
which teller received which cash drawer, making a teller sign for 
a drawer would be a redundant step. The administration was urged 
to reconsider this. A signature would provide a clear audit trailj; 
the Bursar's records alone would not do so. 

In the case of the Parking and Transportation audit all 
recommendations save that of replacing the present tear-off ticket 
with a punch ticket had been implemented. The punch ticket did 
not seem to provide any substantial improvement over the present 
system. 

There followed a brief discussion concerning the auditor's 
finding in the Student Activities audit of frequent payment of 
purchase orders without verification of receipt of goods or 
service. The campus response was that it intended to prohibit 
"pick up" procurement to the extent possible. Trustee Crain 
found the use of the phrase "to the extent possible" in this 
context extremely unfamiliar. Mr. Baxter said there were some 
50 or 60 organizations covered by the Student Activities umbrella, 
If, for example, one of the organizations had need of some minor 
equipment at a time when the Student Activities Business Office 
was closed, the organization would buy the equipment without a 
purchase order. Trustee Crain said that the normal practice in 
industry in these circumstances was to establish a dollar ceiling 
on such purchases. 



It was noted that financial controls of student activ- 
ities was a matter of standard accounting practices and of educat 
ing the ever changing officers of the student organizations to 
understand the practices. Also, the finding seemed to overstate 
the number of instances of payment without verification. It had 
always been the practice of S.A.C. to attempt to verify receipt. 
Chairman Dennis asked that the Committee be given an update on 
these matters at a time of the campus administration's choosing. 



I 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In the matter of the finding that there was no prohibi- 
tion barring a single individual from joining a number of organi- j 
zations, thus imperilling S.A.C. funds because of the S.A.C. dues 
matching policy, it was noted that it was S.A.C. policy that a 
student could join more than one organization; however, dues were 
matched only once. Also, when the new billing/accounts receivable 
system was in place, it would be possible to ensure that dues were 
matched only once. 

It was noted that the Financial Aid audit had been sug- 
gested by the Central Administration because of proposed federal 
regulations which would require audits of the new federal finan- 
cial aid programs. Boston was chosen because it seemed possible 
to do under the new guidelines; Amherst seemed to be relatively 
impossible. The process at Boston was the largest internal audit 
the University had ever tried and it took one and one half man- 
years to complete. This was all part of an effort to respond to 
the new regulations and to discover internal weaknesses, as the 
University began to implement the new billing/accounts receivable 
system. The auditor who did the financial aid audit was on the 
task force for choosing and the task force for implementing the 
new system. 

The Trustees were reminded of management's previously 
expressed desire to hire a firm to do an internal control study of 
financial aid. This was yet another step in preparing for a Uni- 
versity-wide audit. A firm had been hired and a draft report was 
expected within two weeks. In addition, a Financial Aid Task 
Force had been working for some time to identify weaknesses in the 
present operation and to overcome the same. 



In discussing a matter of the Committee's procedures, the 
Trustees were assured that they would not be faced with the prob- 
lem of incomplete responses to auditors findings which involved 
more than one of the three campuses. Assurances were also given 
that the implementation of the new billing/ accounts receivable 
system would include the provision of written policies, procedures 
and job descriptions. 



It was then noted that the federal requirement for fi- 
nancial aid audits was part of a growing trend by the government 
mandating that institutions conduct audits in areas where the 
government used to conduct its own audits. For example, many fed 
eral agencies now required recipients of grants to perform two 
kinds of audits — those dealing with direct costs and those dealing 
with indirect costs. What seemed to be developing was a system 
wherein the government, come audit time, would ask to examine in- 
ternal audits in order to judge the quality of same. All of this 
activity stemmed from a pamphlet entitled "Profram for Improving 
Grant Management." The government intended to base the frequency 
of federal reviews of their assessment of the adequacy of internal 
management. The costs of external audits could be recovered as 
part of the cost of administering the grant. The only way to 

-3- 



Audits 
5/18/78 



Audits 
5/18/78 



UM/Boston — 
Draft FY77 
State Audit 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

recover the costs of internal audits would be to establish a 
separate grants audit office. 

While the trend was to internal audits, there was an 
exception — funds expended under the Health Professions Act of 197"/ 
had to be audited by an independent, certified auditor. 

Speaking of the subject of audits in general, Chairman 
Dennis said he would like to see responses laid out in a slightly 
different fashion; that is, each finding or recommendation should 
be quoted in full and the campus response should immediately fol- 
low the appropriate finding/recommendation. The response should 
also indicate the stage of resolution; that is, finding #1 had 
been resolved completely, finding #2 was being worked on, and 
would be solved in X days, etc. It was noted that many items in 
the several audits would be resolved when the new billing/accounts 
receivable system was in place and was operational; this would in 
many cases govern the campus response. 

Returning to the Financial Aid Audit, it was stated that 
the administration had hired a collection agency in order to col- 
lect the overdue debts. The need to involve university counsel 
in matters such as this was stressed. It was also noted that the 
University had yet to develop a collections and write-off policy; 
this was but one several lacks that would have to be filled before 
the billings/accounts receivable system would become fully opera- 
tional. 

The meeting then discussed the Draft FY77 State Audit — 
UM/Boston. It was noted that the state auditors in their report 
had virtually ignored $20,000,000 in state funds that the campus 
received, and had zeroed in on an expenditure of $1100 from The 
Community Activities fund. A good deal of staff time was spent 
in explaining to the auditors that the fund was indeed a discre- 
tionary fund. Two reasons were posited as to why the auditors 
focused on this issue — it was the first time they had been made 
aware of the existence of the fund and it was an issue which 
might have received media coverage. In those cases where the 
audit report had dealt with more substantive issues, the issues 
had been identified prior to the arrival of the auditors and had 
been solved prior to the issuing of the report. 

There then ensued a brief discussion on the University's 
efforts to get the State Auditor to reformat audit reports. The 
current practice was to include the University's response as an 
appendix to the audit report. This could lead the unwary to be- 
lieve that the University had taken no action on the Auditor's 
recommendations when, in fact, all of them may have been imple- 
mented. This year, for the first time, the University's responses 
were included in the text of the State Auditor's report on the 
Medical Center. One immediate benefit of this was that the 
Management Bureau's obligatory letter concerning the audit had 
far fewer comments that it had in the past. 

-4- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The meeting then discussed the item Office of Education /' 
REW Disallowance — UM/Amherst. This matter concerned an HEW audit I 



of federal grants and contracts, which recommended selected dis- 
allowances for expenditures made between 1969 and 1975, most of 
which disallowances the University had contested. Mr. Hogan said 
he had been discussing these disallowances with HEW officials for 
a period of some two years. The original deadline for the Univer- 
sity's response had been September 30, 1976. This deadline was 
met and two respresentatives of the University had flown to 
Washington to discuss the matter with HEW officials. The meeting 
was a very brief one because of some HEW crisis, and the Univer- 
sity representatives left with the understanding that HEW would 
contact the University if further information was needed. A year 
later HEW sent a non-commital letter to the University. The HEW 
letter just received was an effort to settle this matter. 

The disallowances now in question, totalling $131,209, 
were down substantially from the original recommendations of 
$364,972. The University intended to contest a further $111,000 
of the disallowances, but would not contest the remaining $20,000. 
If HEW would not accept this, the University would consider an 
appeal. 

> 

While the University agreed that some of the disallowanqe 
were proper, there were many that were questionable; e.g., some 
disallowances were based on HEW's assertion that the expenditures 
were undocumented; however, at the time of the expenditures HEW 
guidelines did not require documentation for them. There were 
disallowed expenditures clearly beneficial to the contract which 
were made while awaiting contract renewal. 

Whatever the disallowances eventually totalled, the 
University had options to satisfy HEW other than a cash settlement 
The audits for the period covered by the HEW audit showed that the 
University was reimbursed for indirect costs at a level substan- 
tially below the actual indirect costs. The difference between 
the two costs, while not recoverable by the University in cash, 
was carried on the books under the fixed rate with roll-forward 
concept, and could be applied in determining future rates of 
reimbursement. The size of the University's roll-forward account 
was so large that it could afford to agree to erase some of it in 
order to satisfy the disallowances. While this might not be 
acceptable to HEW, it was certainly worth a try. If HEW insisted 
on a cash payment, this would have to come from currently generated 
funds . 

Chairman Dennis asked if the political implications of 
a cash settlement had been considered. While an accountant might 
readily understand this situation, it would be hard to explain 
to the public that the University owed X thousands of dollars to 
HEW. The fact that other universities were being dunned for 
significantly larger amounts would not alleviate the University's 
predicament . 



-5- 



Audits 
5/18/78 

UM/Amherst — 
Office of 
Education/HEW 
Disallowance 



Audits 
5/18/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Peat, Marwick, 
Mitchell & 
Company Audits 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Crain said that the public relations staff 
should be ready to address the situation. Mr. Hester said it 
should be remembered that the grants had been made to the School 
of Education and the University had already demonstrated its 
willingness to see that malpractices in that school were corrected 
Mr. Hogan said this was an abnormal situation which would not 
recur. Internal procedures had been changed to ensure that such 
situations could not develop. HEW had been informed of these 
changes. Chairman Dennis said a memo for the Committee, and 
possibly the Board, should be prepared outlining what had happened 
and what corrective measures had been taken. 

The Committee then discussed Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & 
Company Audits — UM/Amherst. Chairman Dennis said he was concernec 
at the length of the campus response time. The Peat, Marwick 
transmittal letter was dated December 9, 1977, yet the Committee 
did not receive the report until May 10, 1978. Mr. Beatty said 
there were several reasons for the delay. One was that in dis- 
cussing the first draft with the auditors several legal issues 
arose which had to be addressed by University counsel. For 
reasons which were unclear there was difficulty in getting counsel 
responses to these issues. It seemed to be a situation where if 
there were any possibility of delay, delay would occur. 

Mr. Kaludis said that the audit of the residence halls 
was an example of what could happen. The auditors had written 
directly to the director of the residence halls. He in turn had 
then written to the University General Counsel for advice. The 
University's position in all this was that the auditor should 
direct questions either to the Chancellor or the Central Adminis- 
tration and the auditors agreed to do this, their letter having 
reached the Central Administration office within the week. 

The letter contained two kinds of questions — those that 
were the standard certification questions, these were straight- 
forward and had been answered; the other questions had been more 
difficult, and at times impossible, to answer because of the 
involvement of the Building Authority. 



Chairman Dennis said he understood these problems; how- 
ever some response should be made even if it was to say that a 
full response would take some time to prepare. Procedures should 
be developed which would obviate the use of legal letters as 
excuses for delay. There then ensued a brief discussion on in- 
structing the auditors to issue audits with disclaimers. It was 
the sense of the meeting that these should be issued only very 
cautiously, that what was being disclaimed should be very specifi<|:, 
and that such instructions should come from the Audit Committee. 



The discussion then returned to the general subject of 
audits at Amherst. Mr. Beatty said he had recommended that the 
campus construct a five year schedule for audits. At present the 



I 



I 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

campus had no overall plan. In the discussions that surrounded 
this recommendation, Mr. Beatty said he understood that the campus 
was to use Peat, Marwick for the FY78 audits. It now seemed this 
was incorrect, and that Peat, Marwick was to be used for several 
of the audits and the rest were to be put out for bid. He said 
it was his preference to combine all the audits and put them out 
as one bid. 

Mr. Beatty said his preference for Peat, Marwick stemmed 
from his sense that the campus was moving forward well in terms of 
audits and he was reluctant to change. Chairman Dennis said that 
this issue arose in a discussion he had had with Mr. Beatty. It 
was his belief that if the campus felt it essential that Peat, 
Marwick continue several of the audits that would be acceptable. 
However, consideration should be given to putting the other audits 
out for bid. This would give the University the opportunity to 
judge other firms. 

In response to Chairman Dennis' question, Mr. Beatty 
said he would prefer to have all of the audits done by one firm. 
While this was a preference, it wasn't a very strong one. Mr. 
Kaludis said that he felt that Peat, Marwick should continue 
doing at least three of the audits — the Campus Center, the 
Residence Halls and Continuing Education. These were areas where 
there was going to be controversy and where changes would have 
to be made. From a public relations point of view, changing 
auditors at a time when unfavorable comments were imminent might 
be inadvisable. This was particularly true of the Campus Center 
and the Residence Halls, where there was the possibility of a 
set-to with the Building Authority. 

It would be good to have an auditor who knew these 
situations and who would be able to provide sound advice when 
needed. Chairman Dennis said that in the bid process due weight 
should be given to a firm's direct experience; however, another 
bid might be so much more economical that it would be considered. 
Mr. Kaludis said most of the pressure was going to be on the 
campus administration and that he would defer to Mr. Beatty in 
this regard. 



Trustee Crain said that his concern was that some 
bidders might submit unrealistically low bids. His experience 
had been that such firms if chosen, should be told their perfor- 
mance was going to be very carefully monitored. Mr. Beatty said 
that he felt that this year would see a turn around in the opera- 
tions of some of the major areas and this was due in large measure 
to the help from Peat, Marwick. In response to a comment that 
the firm was an expensive one, Mr. Beatty said that in many 
instances it could be argued that the University had received 
more than it had paid for. Chairman Dennis said that all of the 
concerns expressed could be answered in the evaluation stage of 
the bid process. Mr. Hester said it would be possible to establish 
weighted criteria in advance that would make it possible to 
evaluate each proposal objectively. 



-7- 



Audits 
5/18/78 



Audits 
5/18/78 



UM/ Worcester- 
External 

Auditor 
Selection 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Dennis said that the bid process for the 
Worcester audit had established a precedent and, if the Univer- 
sity were to achieve uniformity in these matters, the precedent 
would have to be followed. He said he would not object to Peat, 
Marwick doing one or two of the audits, but he would like to see 
the bid process used in other cases. Mr. Kaludis said he wished 
to stress his recommendation that the Building Authority related 
audits be assigned to Peat, Marwick. 

The meeting then heard a brief report on External 
Auditor Selection — UM/Worcester . As requested, the campus had 
selected three firms that were acceptable. These firms would be 
evaluated quickly and a recommendation would soon be before the 
Committee. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee, and the meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m. 



I 





Dorothy Bttchel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



f 



I 



-8- 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

May 24, 1978; 2:30 p.m. 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy, President Patter- 
son; Trustees Breyer, Burack and Popko ; Ms. Pinck representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Member : Trustee Morgenthau 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Weinei 
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Dr. Goodman, Provost; Professor 
Wright; Professor Hittelman; Professor Smith, Faculty Representa- 
tive 

Guest : Mr. Knapp , President-elect 

The meeting was called to order at 2:45 p.m. by Chair- 
man Troy, who informed those present that Mr. Knapp and President 
Patterson would be joining the meeting a little later in the pro- 
ceedings. He then turned to the first agenda item, Proposal for 
the Establishment of a Ph.D. Program in the Medical Sciences — 
UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-090) . He reminded the Committee that at 
the May 3 Board meeting, the Trustees had approved such a progran 
and said that the details of the program would be reviewed by the 
Committee at this meeting. Mr. Lynton commented that this pro- 
gram had been a long time in the planning stage, that it was con- 
sistent with the goals and missions of the Medical Center, and 
that it had been reviewed by the staff of the President's Office 
He said he recommended that the Committee approve the proposal 
and forward it to the Board for action. The proposal, he said, 
had been forwarded to the Board of Higher Education for approval 
of the first stage, and when approved by the Board of Trustees, 
it would be submitted to the Board of Higher Education for ap- 
proval of the second stage. 

At the request of Chairman Troy, Chancellor Bulger com- 
mented briefly, saying that Provost Goodman and Professor Wright, 



oit 



UM/Worcester — 
Establishment 
of Ph.D. Pro- 
gram in the 
Medical Sci- 
ences 
(Doc. T78-090) 



F&EP 
5/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the author of the proposal, were present to answer any specific 
questions that the Committee might have. 

Trustee Burack asked what the scope of the administra- 
tive costs of the program would be. Professor Wright replied 
that the cost would be minimal, including the services on a part- 
time basis of an associate dean, who would be the director of 
the program, and the costs of operating the office, such as sup- 
plies and mimeographing. Most of the faculty, research equipment, 
facilities and grants were already present at the Medical Center. 

Trustee Burack said that she would be opposed to any 
program which would increase the per capita cost of the Medical 
School, but since this program would actually decrease this cost 
through increased use of the facilities, she was in favor of it. 

Replying to a question raised by Chairman Troy, Pro- 
fessor Wright said that grants obtained by the faculty would sup- 
port most of the graduate students in the program, which was why 
it was anticipated that the program would soon be self-supporting 
Professor Wright said it was anticipated that there would be five 
students in the program the first year, eight in the second year, 
and ten in each year thereafter. He said he did not envision 
more than fifty students in the program. He stated that it was 
hoped that this program could use, and contribute to, the re- 
sources of the Worcester Consortium, thereby not requiring the 
development of a number of new programs and not duplicating exist 
ing programs in the area. Ms. Pinck asked if it was anticipated 
that students in these programs would be Massachusetts residents. 
Professor Wright replied that although at first this might be the 
case, no plans were being made to limit students to those resid- 
ing in Massachusetts. 

Professor Smith remarked that the graduate program 
would make the Medical Center eligible for training grants throug 
NIH. Money was also available through NIH, she said, for post- 
doctoral programs. 

Chairman Troy interrupted discussion at this point to 
introduce Mr. Knapp, President-elect, who had joined the meeting 
in the company of President Patterson. Discussion then continued. 
Chairman Troy asked what kinds of positions these doctoral candi- 
dates would be trained for. Professor Wright said the two pri- 
mary careers would be those of scientist and of scientist educa- 
tor. He said it was expected that many of the graduates of the 
program would become members of the faculty, while others would 
work for private research organizations. The program, he said, 
was designed to prepare not only good scientists, but scientists 
who were also good teachers. Trustee Burack asked if research 
on drugs and drug development would be appropriate subjects for 
study under this program, as she understood there was money 
available both from the government and from pharmaceutical com- 
panies for this type of research. Chancellor Bulger replied 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

that pharmacology was one of the six basic sciences and that 
clinical pharmacology was a bridge that was just being built. 
Programs would emerge, he said, that would address this area. 
Trustee Burack emphasized the importance that scientists be 
•taught to write well in order to explain their work effectively. 

Chairman Troy said if there were no further questions, 
he would call for a motion to approve the program. On motion 
made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
establishment of a Ph.D. Program in the Medical Sci- 
ences at the University of Massachusetts Medical 
School, as detailed in Trustee Document T78-090, and 
that said proposal be submitted to the Board of 
Higher Education for its review and approval, to be 
implemented in September, 1979. 

Chairman Troy then introduced the second agenda item, 
Policies on Salaries and Leaves for Academic Administrators, and 
Policy on Named Professorships . At the request of the Chairman, 
Mr. Lynton reviewed this item. He said that this matter had been 
discussed at a joint meeting of the Committees on Budget and Fi- 
nance and Faculty and Educational Policy, and as a result of the 
joint meeting, the proposed policies had been revised and were 
being brought to the Committee on. Faculty and Educational Policy 
for their endorsement, after which the policies would be reviewed 
once more by the Committee on Budget and Finance before being for 
warded to the full Board for approval. 

The principal changes in the Salary Policy for Academic 
Administrators, said Mr. Lynton, were that at the suggestion of 
Trustee Burack an insertion had been made on page two, which 
stipulated that overscale salaries must be approved by the Board 
of Trustees. A distinction between senior university officials, 
whose salaries should be set in relation to their administra- 
tive positions, and other faculty/administrators who move back 
and forth between the two positions, whose salaries should be 
set at the faculty level with an additional amount included when 
they take an administrative position, had been included in the 
amended policy. 

Ms. Pinck asked who would be included in the category 
of "all other administrative positions," and Mr. Lynton replied 
that this category would include the staff of the President, 
Chancellors, Vice Presidents, Provosts and Deans. 

Trustee Burack said that because of her philosophical 
opposition to this policy, she would vote against it; however, 
she did wish answers to questions with regard to the document. 
She questioned the wording in Item (2) of the policy, which in- 
dicated that two separate contracts would be negotiated, one for 
the administrative position and one for the faculty appointment. 



-3- 



F&EP 
5/24/78 



Policies on 
Salaries and 
Leaves for Aca- 
demic Adminis- 
trators, and 
Policy on Named 
Professorships 
(Doc. T78-069A, 
-070A, and 
-071A) 



F&EP 
5/24/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

She asked that the words "where applicable" be added after the 
words "faculty appointment" since it was her view that many of 
the administrators who would be appointed would not have faculty 
appointments as well. In the last paragraph of Item (2), Trustee 
Burack asked that the wording be changed to indicate that in 
cases where, upon termination of the administrative appointment, 
the individual reverted to faculty status, this would happen at 
the originally negotiated faculty salary. She also asked what 
would happen if upon the termination of the administrative posi- 
tion, the person reverting to faculty status would return to a 
department which already had its full complement of tenured fac- 
ulty; or if the person reverting to faculty status had been an 
administrator for some time, how he or she would be updated in 
his or her field so as to be able to compare favorably with othei 
faculty in the department. 

Mr. Lynton, replying to Trustee Burack' s questions, 
said that there were two distinct kinds of cases. The first, he 
said, was where an untenured faculty member took on an administrs 
tive position. Some faculty, he said, felt that such a change ir 
duties was a risk to young untenured faculty members, since it 
interrupted their scholarly development. Trustee Burack com- 
mented that they were well paid for taking the risk. The other 
situation, continued Mr. Lynton, was where the faculty member al- 
ready had tenure. The experience such a person acquired as an 
administrator would probably be helpful to him when he returned 
to the faculty even though, naturally, his development in his 
academic field would suffer as a result of the time devoted to 
administrative duties. 

Chairman Troy asked the provosts what their experience 
had been with administrators who returned to the faculty. The 
provosts replied that after an initial period of awkwardness, 
the former administrators had been assimilated with success. 
Several were outstanding in their fields, and one such adminis- 
trator had been awarded the University's medal for outstanding 
service. When a faculty member was appointed to an administra- 
tive position, said Provost Allen, the department took into con- 
sideration the fact that he or she might at some time return to 
the department and planned accordingly. Trustee Burack said she 
was disturbed that such a policy might deprive an outstanding 
young nontenured faculty member of achieving tenure. Provost 
Steamer said he thought there were advantages to both adminis- 
trators and faculty in their ability to move back and forth from 
one type of position to the other. Trustee Breyer said he, too, 
saw this as a desirable procedure. Trustee Burack said she was 
in favor of faculty promotions to administrative positions; her 
objection was to administrators' being hired from outside the 
University and given tenured positions. 

Chairman Troy said if there were no more questions 
with regard to the salary policy, he would ask for discussion 
of the proposed Leave Policy for Administrators. 



-4- 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Lynton said that this policy had been substantially 
revised and simplified. The main differences were that adminis- 
trative leave had been limited to five months with no provision 
for accumulated leave, and terminal leave had been eliminated. 
In addition, he said, the revised policy stipulated that time 
toward administrative leave could not also count as time toward 
a sabbatical. Trustee Burack asked if the study leave would be 
with pay. Mr. Lynton replied affirmatively. Trustee Burack said 
she was opposed to administrative leave and would not vote for it 
Trustee Breyer said he felt this leave was a good idea because it 
would encourage the drawing of administrators from the ranks of 
faculty and would make it easier for administrators to return to 
the faculty. He said he did not think this would happen unless 
there were a policy such as that proposed. The leave, he said, 
would make this transition easier and would encourage people to 
move from one to the other position. 

Provost Allen said that the adoption of this policy 
would change the practice at UM/Amherst, where administrators had 
been allowed to accrue time toward sabbaticals. 

Mr. Lynton said this policy would alleviate the problem 
of an administrator taking sabbatical leave during his term of 
administration. Such leave taken by an administrator often 
proved to be disruptive, much more so than when taken by a member 
of the faculty. 



Provost Steamer said it was beneficial to both the in- 
dividual and the University for administrative leave to occur at 
the time when the administrator was returning to faculty status. 
Several Trustees expressed concern as to whether the establish- 
ment of this policy would affect collective bargaining negotia- 
tions. It was pointed out that the change affected administratorjs 
and not faculty , so it should not present a problem. 



Chairman Troy asked that discussion turn to the third 
policy, the Policy on Named Professorships. Trustee Burack 
asked that the wording be changed to read that "each named pro- 
fessorship" would be created by the Board of Trustees. She asked 
also that the words "upon recommendation by the Chancellors" be 
stricken from the policy and that in each case the responsibili- 
ties, in general terms, of the individual be set forth before an 
appointment is made to a named professorship. She also asked 
that the wording be changed so that the policy would read that 
"These positions may either be awarded with tenure, ..." 
rather than reading " can , " as the proposed policy presently state 

Chairman Troy asked the status of the Commonwealth Pro- 
fessorships and if they were included under the heading of Named 
Professorships. Mr. Lynton replied that it was the consensus 
that the term Commonwealth Professorship should be phased out. 
Chairman Troy then suggested that if there were no further com- 
ments, the policies as amended be recommended to the Board. 



-5- 



F&EP 
5/24/78 



F&EP 
5/24/78 



UM/Boston, 
UM/ Worcester — 
1978 Tenure 
Awards 
(Doc. T78-089) 



Executive 
Session 



and 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

On motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees endorse the 
policy on salaries for academic administrators as 
contained in Document T78-070A. 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees endorse the 
policy on leave for academic administrators as con- 
tained in Document T78-071A. 

and further 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees endorse the 
policy on named professorships as contained in 
Document T78-069A. 

Trustee Burack voted in opposition to the Policy on 
Administrative Leave. 

Chairman Troy said the final agenda item, 1978 Tenure 
Awards — UM/Boston and UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-089) , would be dis- 
cussed in executive session. Mr. Lynton explained that these 
were only the first portion of the recommendations to be con- 
sidered. The UM/Amherst tenure recommendations, he said, had 
been delayed due to the change in personnel in the Provost's of- 
fice, and delays at both UM/Amherst and UM/Boston had occurred 
as a result of the stringent requirements of the academic person-] 
nel policy, which required reviews at many levels whenever there 
was any doubt about the advisability of awarding tenure to an in- 
dividual. Mr. Lynton said that there were 62 recommendations for 
tenure this year, a considerable reduction over previous years. 
He hoped that the remaining recommendations would be ready for 
review by the Committee at its June 14 meeting. 

Chairman Troy asked that the Chancellors and Provosts 
remain for the executive session, and on motion made and seconded 
at 4:00 p.m. it was unanimously 

VOTED : To enter executive session for the purpose of dis- 
cussing tenure recommendations. 



sion 
then 



At 4:12 p.m. it was agreed to end the executive ses- 
In public session, on motion made and seconded, it was 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur in 
the President's award of tenure to those faculty 
members at UM/Boston and UM/Worcester named in 
Trustee Document T78-089, effective September 1978 

There being no further business, the meeting was ad- 
journed at 4:15 p.m. ^ ^«=> 4 




Dorothy Eichel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



-6- 



r 



i 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON STUDENT AFFAIRS 



May 30, 1978, 10:00 a.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Shearer; Trustees Dion, 
Kassler, and 0' Sullivan; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees McNeil and Okin 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Ms. Simmons, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affair 



UM/ Amherst : Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 

UM/Boston : Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Feinblatt, Associate Dean and Director of 
Student Affairs 






Guests : Mr. Drews, Student, UM/ Amherst 

The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. Chairmar 
Shearer called for discussion on Mandatory Housing and Dining 
Requirements — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-092) . 

Ms. Simmons said that the proposal before the Committee 
requested the Board to modify the mandatory housing and dining 
policy to allow juniors as well as seniors to live off campus 
if they wished to do so. She reminded the Trustees that this 
matter had been discussed at the April 27, 1978, joint meeting oi 
the Committees on Student Affairs and Budget and Finance. At 
that meeting it had been agreed that Student Affairs would bring 
a recommendation to the Board. Ms. Simmons concluded by noting 
that there were financial risks in the proposal; however, it 
was felt that the risks were remote and that definite management 
and educational benefits would result from modifying the current 
policy. 

Mr. Woodbury said that Trustee Kassler had raised ques- 
tions about how the town of Amherst would react to the proposed 
change. He said he had talked with Trustee Romer, Chairperson 
of the Amherst Board of Selectmen. Trustee Romer had said that 
the Selectmen had sent a letter to the Committee expressing the 
town's views. These were that the University could do as it 
wished; however, they urged the University, in considering such 
matters, to think about the total housing situation in the Amhers 
area. 



UM/Amherst — 
Mandatory 
Housing and 
Dining Re- 
quirements 
(Doc, T78-092) 



Student Affairs 
5/30/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In the matter of financial risk, Mr. Woodbury continued, 
the material supplied to the Committee gave a "best case/worst 
case" analysis in order to indicate the boundaries of the risk 
involved. Over the past few years the residence hall occupancy 
rate has averaged 91 percent. If the juniors were given the 
option of living off campus and if the occupancy rate remained 
constant, then there would be no financial risk. In the "worst 
case," that is, if freshman and sophomore enrollment were to 
decline and if a fewer number of seniors and graduate students 
opted to live in the residence halls, then 47 percent or 2,350 
juniors would have to choose to live on campus to reach the 
necessary 91 percent occupancy rate. In the "best case," that is, 
if freshman/sophomore enrollments did not decline and if the 
number of seniors and graduate students remained steady, then 39 
percent or 1,950 juniors would have to choose to live on campus to 
reach the necessary occupancy rate. Mr. Woodbury said that all 
indications were that the University would be in a "best case" 
situation in the coming year. 

Trustee Kassler suggested that officials in other 
towns in addition to Amherst be informed of the proposed change. 
Mr. Woodbury said that it should be noted that roughly half of 
the student body lived off campus; thus if the residence require- 
ment were altered, the numbers of students living off campus would 
not, in percentage terms, increase greatly. Trustee Kassler said 
his concern was not that the juniors would flood the market; 
however it would be politic to make the towns aware of the Univer- 
sity's intent. Mr. Woodbury said he would contact the appropriate 
town officials. 

Chairman Shearer said that at the April meeting when 
this matter had been discussed, it has been pointed out that 
the option being offered might not be a real one because of the 
lack of alternative housing in the area. 

Chairman Shearer then said that she had just been 
told that Trustee Romer had called and had confirmed what Mr. 
Woodbury had reported earlier, that is, that the town had no 
concern about particular rules but did have great concerns about 
the maintenance of sites for housing use. Mr. Woodbury said tha 
Trustee Romer was speaking of the exteriors of the residence 
halls. They should be as attractive as possible. This coincide* 
with the University's concern. 

Trustee Kassler asked if the matter of financial risk 
had been explained to the students — that is, if the juniors 
were exempted from the residence hall requirement, this could le^d 
to a drop in the occupancy rate, which in turn could lead to an 
increase in rates for those still living on campus. Trustee 
Dion said he had discussed this matter with the Off-Campus Housing 
Office and the records and experiences of that office over a 
period of years indicated that there was not enough available 
housing stock off campus to seriously affect the residence halls 
occupancy rate. 

-2- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Woodbury asked what the student reaction would be if the 
optimistic expectations proved wrong and the rates had to be 
raised. Trustee Dion said he met with the Committee on Rents 
and Fees and they understood the risk involved and had not ex- 
pressed any concern. There was no further discussion and it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend to the Board of Trustees that, 
pursuant to the recommendations set forth in 
Doc. T78-092, effective the fall semester 1978, 
all full-time undergraduate students (enrolled 
for twelve semester credits or more) on the Am- 
herst campus be required to live in on-campus resi- 
dence halls during their freshman and sophomore 
years. Exemption from this requirement may be 
granted to the following: married students, 
veterans, students living in and commuting from 
the home of their parent (s) or guardian(s) while 
in attendance at the University, and resident 
members of fraternities or sororities at the 
Amherst campus. 

Mr. Lynton noted that University Counsel had said 
that according to his interpretation of the Building Authority 
statute the change in the residence hall requirement would have 
to be submitted to and approved by the Building Authority. It 
was not yet clear if this interpretation was correct. If it 
was correct, then the change could not go into effect until the 
Authority had given its approval. 

It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend to the Board of Trustees that, 
purusant to the recommendations set forth in 
Doc. T78-092, effective the fall semester, 1978, 
all full-time undergraduate students (enrolled 
for twelve semester credits or more) on the Am- 
herst campus be required to subscribe to a 
boarding plan in the campus dining commons 
during freshman and sophomore years. Exemp- 
tion from this requirement may be granted to 
the following: married students, veterans, 
students living in and commuting from the 
home of their parent (s) or guardian(s) while 
in attendance at the University, and resident 
members of fraternities or sororities at the 
Amherst campus. 

The Committee then discussed Student Activities Tax — 
UM/ Amherst . 



Student Affairs 
5/30/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Ms. Simmons said this was a matter which should hav£ Student Ac- 
been dealt with at the April 27 joint meeting; however, the mat- tivities Tax 
ter had been postponed because of ongoing discussions between th& 



-3- 



Student Affairs 
5/30/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Health Services 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

students and the campus administration on the funding of the 
transit services, and because elections for the Co-Presidents 
of the Student Government Association had been delayed. 

The SGA was proposing an $8.00 per year increase in the; 
Student Activities Tax. The increase was necessary because of the 
increased cost of the transit services, the expansion of funding 
for concerts on campus, the growth of the Legal Services Office 
program and general inflationary pressures. Ms. Simmons concluded 
by noting that the Budget and Finance Committee would act on the 
proposed increase. 

Mr. Woodbury said that the major portion of the proposed 
increase would be used for the transit system. Trustee Dion said 
that the transit system had caused the SGA a good deal of concern. 
Because of increased cost, the choices had narrowed down to those 
of severely reducing the funding of a number of activities or 
increasing the student financial contribution to the system. 
After much discussion the Student Senate had voted overwhelmingly 
to increase the contribution. 

Chairman Shearer asked if this increase was related to 
the matter of off-campus housing in the sense that if public 
transportation were not available, the amount of accessible 
housing would be even less. Trustee Dion said this was true. The 
system served several communities in the area, and plans were 
being developed to expand and improve the service. 

Mr. Lynton said it would be useful to know some of 
the details justifying the increase in the budget of the Legal 
Services Office. Mr. Drews said the FY 1978 budget for the Office 
was just over $59,000; during the course of the year this had been 
augmented by some $8,000 for paralegal staff. The proposed 
$16,000 increase would be used for this purpose, to rent a Xerox 
machine and to create an additional clerical position. 



Mr. Lynton said his concern was related to a different 
aspect of the matter. Two years ago the Trustees, after a great 
deal of discussion, had agreed to an expansion of the purview of 
the Legal Services Office. During the discussion there had been 
an emphasis on the kinds of issues and the kinds of cases with 
which the Office would become involved. These questions were 
still being asked and it would be helpful to the Trustees to have 
an activities report as well as a budget report. Mr. Drews said 
that about 75 percent of the work done by the Office involved 
individual students; the rest was work done for the student 
government. Mr. Callahan agreed with the need for a report 
on the activities of the Office. Mr. Dion said a written report 
would be prepared. 

The Committee then heard a report on Health Services — 
UM/Amherst. Mr. Woodbury said that while the Health Services 
operation was quite large and had been in existence for some time 
the services had never been accredited by the American College 



-4- 



I 



I 



l 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Health Assocation. A decision had been made to ask the ACHA to 

send an accreditation team to the campus and to ask the team not 

only to examine the accreditability of the Services but also to 
compare them with similar services at other campuses . 

The team had visited the campus and had given an oral 
report and a brief overview. A final report was yet to come. 
The team had arrived with the expectation that the Amherst Health 
Services were one of the best in the country and, after visiting 
all areas of the Services, had concluded that the Services were 
better than expected. As part of an educational institution it 
was unique. The team found an array of services and talent not 
available in any other University in a non-urban setting. While 
the team's other comments were also laudatory, they did express 
concern about a need for added physical facilities in order to 
bring all of the services under one roof. They also expressed a 
possible need for an expansion of the mental health and dental 
services . 



After a brief discussion the Committee agreed to discuss 
this matter in detail when the ACHA final report was received. 

There was no further business to come before the Commiti- 
tee and the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. 



Student Affairs 
5/30/78 




Dorothy EiMiel 

Assistant Secretary to 

the Board of Trustees 



-5- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



P 



NOT USED 



I 



■ 



TTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 

May 30, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff: Chairman Crain, President Patterson; 



Trustees Krumsiek and Marks; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop; Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members: Trustees Breyer and Dennis 



Other Trustees: Trustees Dion and O'Sullivan; Ms. Pinck represent 



ing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration Staff: Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for 



Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; 

Ms. Hanson, Budget Director; Ms. Taylor, Assistant Budget Director]; 

Ms. Simmons, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budget and 



Institutional Studies 

UM/Boston: Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 



Finance 



UM/Worcester: 



Mr. Thompson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Communi 
Relations; Mr. Fellner, Assistant Controller; Dr. Eckhart, Assist- 
ant Dean of Admissions; Ms. Rosen, Consultant for Day Care 

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by 
Chairman Crain, who asked Ms. Hanson, Budget Director, to explain 
the need for the End of the Year Fund Transfers (Doc. T78-091) . 
Ms. Hanson said that these transfers were a "fine tuning" of the 
budget to make the most efficient use of remaining funds. The 
largest single transfers, she said, were at the UM/Worcester 
Medical Center and were due primarily to two factors — difficulty 
in obtaining authorization for permanent 01 positions, and the 
late arrival of some faculty in 1978 and the delay of others to 
1979. 

Some of the savings from this account will be used for 
the purchase of library materials and medical supplies and for 
supplies and equipment necessitated by the hiring of new faculty. 
Most of the other transfers, she said, were for lesser amounts. 
There were no questions with regard to the transfers, other than 
to question some of the computations, where it was discovered 
wrong figures had been carried forward, and on motion made and 
seconded, it was 



ty 



End of Year 
Fund Transfers 
(Doc. T78-091) 



B & F 
5/30/78 



Trust Fund 

Interest 

Account 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 

approve the subsidiary account transfers as 
detailed in Doc. T78-091. 

At the request of Chairman Crain, President Patterson 
explained the need for requested transfers in the Trust Fund 
Interest Account . He said these transfers were necessary because 
of some unanticipated expenses — for insurance and collective 
bargaining. He said the University had had difficulty in obtain- 
ing comprehensive liability insurance for the campuses and insur- 
ance to cover the Trustees and officers of the University. This 
insurance had now been obtained, but at a higher cost than had 
been anticipated. The additional money requested for labor 
relations, or collective bargaining, was to cover consultants' 
fees. In addition, he said, there was the necessity to provide 
money for the rent of the central administrative offices since 
the facilities at 100 Arlington Street would not be ready by 
July 1. 

Ms. Hanson said she and Treasurer Brand were prepared 
to review the history of the Trust Fund Interest Account should 
the Committee wish it. Chairman Crain said he would be interested 
in knowing the year end balances of this account for the years 
for which the income is shown in Exhibit D of the material pro- 
vided to the Committee. Treasurer Brand provided the requested 
figures . 



Trustee Marks asked if the Trustees were the custodians 
of the Alumni Trust Funds. Treasurer Brand said that the Trustees 
were responsible for the Alumni Trust Funds which were a part of 
the general University Fund, but that all other Alumni funds were 
held by the University of Massachusetts Foundation. The Univer- 
sity, he said, controls the operating funds for the Alumni, but 
the class funds are administered by the Foundation. Ms. Hanson 
said that she also provided some notes on the Trust Fund Interest 
Account and a record of allocations of the Trust Fund Interest to 
the major units of the University, both of which had been distrib- 
uted at the meeting. She said that although these are discre- 
tionary funds, much of the money is used to support operating 
costs on the campuses, such as insurance, alumni office activitie|s, 
scholarships, and the marching band at UM/Amherst; similar 
activities at UM/Boston and UM/Worcester are financed by these 
funds, and in Worcester this money is also used for recruiting 
expenses. The University administration, she said, had had to 
use these funds in recent years to pay for salaries for which 
the state did not provide adequately. The President's Council 
expenses and University-wide memberships are also drawn from 
this fund. 

President Patterson suggested that the University-wide 
memberships could be considered one of the Common Services pro- 
vided for from state funds. It was agreed that this approach 
could be used. 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain said that he thought an effort should be 
made to get state support for some of these items. President 
Patterson agreed, using as an example the Day Care Center at UM/ 
Boston, which is a vital part of the operation of that campus. 
Chairman Crain asked if someone could review items currently being 
paid for from Trust Funds and prioritize those items which should 
be a part of the operating budget so that at the time the next 
budget is being prepared, a strategy for including some of these 
items might be evolved. Mr. Pinck asked that amount of the 
scholarship fund. Mr. Beatty replied that there was a recurring 
commitment of $35,000 for scholarships. Ms. Pinck said that she 
wanted to be sure that all scholarship needs were met, and not 
just athletic scholarships. She said that she had been assured 
in the past that this was so. Chairman Crain asked that the Com- 
mittee receive a report with an analysis of those items that the 
University might wish to discuss with the Legislature with the 
hope of receiving state funding for them. Trustee Marks sug- 
gested that the University might be more successful if it concen- 
trated on two or three items at a time, rather than to push for 
everything at once. There was no further discussion, and on mo- 
tion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED ; To recommend to the Board of Trustees approval 
of the following allocations from the Trustee 
Trust Fund Interest Reserve (account 2-05905) 
to University Administration account 2-05510: 

FY78 For Collective Bargaining Legal $39,000 
Services 

FY79 For Liability Insurance Payments $63,023 

FY79 For One Washington Mall Rent $13,591 



Chairman Crain asked Ms. Hanson to summarize the Report 
on Major Consultant Expenses , which had been circulated to the 
Committee at the meeting. 

Ms. Hanson explained the various types of consultant ex- 
penses. Mr. Kaludis said that for an institution the size and 
complexity of the University, the cost for these services was not 
large. Chairman Crain asked how consultants were chosen. Mr. . 
Kaludis said that in some cases, the University hired consultants 
who had the most expertise in a given area. The University is 
beginning to seek bids for its major audits. Chairman Crain said 
that the money spent on audits would only be seen as constructive 
if remedial action was taken to correct the deficiencies dis- 
covered by the audits. He said the Trustees had the responsibility 
of providing the money necessary to perform the necessary remedial 
work. He said the Committee on Audits should make sure the Com- 
mittee on Budget and Finance is apprised of the needs disclosed 
by the audits. He asked that the analysis of consultant expenses 
be shared with the rest of the Board. 

-3- 



B & F 
5/30/78 



Trust Fund 

Interest 

Fund Transfers 



Report on 
Major Con- 
sultant Ex- 
penses 



B & F 
5/30/78 

UM/ Amherst- 
Student Ac- 
tivities 
Trust Fund 
Fees 



UM/Worcester - 
Child Care 
Center 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain then asked for discussion of the item 
Student Activities Trust Fund Fees — UM/ Amherst. Ms. Hanson said 



this item had been discussed at the Committee on Student Affairs 
and asked Ms. Simmons to report on that discussion. The Commit- 
tee on Student Affairs, said Ms. Simmons, had no opposition to the 
increase in the Student Activities Fee; however, they did request 
that an outline of the activities of the Legal Services program 
office by available at the June 7 meeting of the Board. Trustee 
Marks asked how the $1.50 for the Distinguished Visitors Program 
was used. The student budget officer said that it covered the 
cost of visiting lecturers, movies and other student sponsored 
activities. There was no further discussion and on motion made 
and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend to the Board of Trustees, that 
effective July 1, 1978, an annual fee of 
$72.00, be established as the Student Acti- 
vities Fee for University undergraduate 
students on the Amherst campus, including 
$1.50 for the Distinguished Visitors Program. 

Chairman Crain next asked for the report on the Child 
Care Center — UM/Worcester . Mr. Thompson said that the report that 



had been circulated was prepared in response to questions raised 
by Trustees at the March Student Affairs and Budget and Finance 
meetings and at the April meeting of the Board. He said that to 
date the Child Care Center had been extremely successful and that 
25 children were currently enrolled. He reported that he had 
statistics to alleviate the concern that the University might be 
subsidizing children of high income families in the area. He saic 
that the incomes of families now using the center were as follows: 
One family was on welfare; twelve had incomes under $12,000; eight 
had incomes in the $12,000 to $15,999 level; one in the $16,000 
to $20,000; two in the $21,000 to $27,999; and only one in the 
$35,000 to $39,000 category. The Center, he said, was serving 
all the purposes for which it was set up and there was much en- 
thusiasm on the part of both staff and parents using the Center. 
Chairman Crain said that one of the concerns expressed by the 
Trustees was that students with families be given priority in the 
use of the facility. Mr. Thompson said that the report indicated 
that steps would be taken to ensure that student needs were met. 
Currently, he said, eight students were using the Center. Another 
concern, said Chairman Crain, was that while student needs for day 
care at UM/Boston were not being met, day care would be provided 
for staff at UM/Worcester . Ms. Hanson said that one of the speci- 
fics uses of Trust Fund Interest was to subsidize the day care 
program at UM/Boston. Trustee Marks asked if there was communica- 
tion between the directors of the day care centers of the two cam- 
puses and was assured that there was. Trustee Krumsiek asked if 
it was anticipated that the Child Care Center in Worcester would 
grow. Mr. Thompson replied that it was anticipated that in time 
the Center would accommodate up to fifty children. Chairman Crain 
said he would like all Trustees to receive the report on the Chile 
Care Center. 

-4- 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. Hanson reminded the Committee that the fees had been 
approved only through FY1978 and asked for action which would al- 
low the Child Care Center to continue this fee schedule through 
FY1979. On motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the fee schedule for the 
University of Massachusetts Medical Center 
Day Care program set forth in Doc. T78-075 
be extended through FY1979. 

Chairman Crain asked next for the report on Small 
Business/Minority Purchasing. Mr. Kaludis said that the Univer- 



sity will exceed its targets in this area. UM/Amherst has shown 
a five-fold increase in business with minority bidders and has 
included purchasing by the auxiliary enterprises in this program. 
Mr. Kaludis called attention to Chancellor Bulger's memorandum to 
department chairpersons and heads, asking for their cooperation 
in the purchasing that they do directly. President Patterson, he 
said, had requested that the Chancellors provide the departments 
with information on small business and minority vendors. 

Trustee Dion questioned the orders which were not bid, 
and Mr. Kaludis explained that there were usually the result of a 
single source of supply, or for small purchases. 

I 

Chairman Crain asked next for discussion of the Policies 
on Salaries and Leaves for Academic Administrators, and Policy on 



Named Professorships . Mr. Lynton explained that since the joint 



jmeeting of the Committees on Faculty and Educational Policy and 
( Budget and Finance had discussed these policies, the policies had j 
.been revised to incorporate suggestions made at that meeting. The 
Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy had discussed the pol- 
icies at its May meeting and recommended further changes. The 
major changes, he said, were the following: 

The Salary Policy for Academic Administrators is prac- 
tically identical to that originally distributed to the Committee 
on April 3. Two changes are: 1) that overscale salaries must 
receive the approval of the Board of Trustees, and 2) that because 
faculty appointments do not necessarily accompnay administrative 
appointments, the words "where applicable" have been added to 
clarify the point. 

The Leave Policy for Academic Administrators has been 
substantially changed from the original version. Two major 
changes are: 1) the administrative leave at the end of the term 
,of office has been limited to five months, rather than being cum- 
ulative up to eleven months, and 2) terminal leave has been elim- \ 
inated. 

The Policy on Named Professorships has been amended so 
that 1) appointment to these professorships must be with the 
approval of the Board rather than the concurrence of the Board; 
and 2) the items have been reordered for the sake of clarity; 

-5- 



B & F 
5/30/78 



Report on 
Small Business 
and Minority 
Purchasing 



Policies on 
Salaries and 
Leaves for 
Academic Ad- 
ministrators 
Policy on 
Named Pro- 
fessorships 
(Doc. T78-070A. 
071A, and 069A) 



B & F 
5/30/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

and 3) the explicit reference to the recommendations by the Chan- 
cellors has been deleted, since some of the appointments are 
University-wide and do not require such recommendation. 

Trustee Marks asked if there had been agreement at the 
Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy on the five-month 
leave for academic administrators after five years of service. 
Mr. Lynton replied that Trustee Burack was opposed to any leave 
policy for academic administrators, as she had previously stated. 
He said the policy had been more open-ended in the original ver- 
sion. There were two major changes: Previous to this proposed 
policy, there had never been any degree of specificity for leave 
for administrators without faculty appointments; also, administra- 
tors who had faculty appointments were allowed to accumulate sab- 
batical leave time as administrators and had on occasion requestec. 
and been granted sabbatical leave while they were serving as ad- 
ministrators. That type of leave is disruptive to administrative 
offices. Under the proposed policy, leave for administrators 
would be limited to three months every five years. The sabbatical 
time clock would stop when the faculty member assumed an admini- 
strative position and would not resume until he or she returned tc 
the faculty. 

President Patterson said this is a major change for admin- 
istrators, but he said he felt it was a desirable policy. Trustee 
Marks asked what an administrator would be doing during his perioc 
of leave. President Patterson said that some corporations felt 
that it was a good thing to give administrators a time to refresh 
themselves. An example of a worthwhile kind of leave would be 
time spent on the campus of a comparable institution to see how 
that institution functioned. The leave at the end of the term 
of office would be for the purpose of allowing the administrator 
to update his knowledge in his academic field prior to his return 
to a faculty position. 

Trustee Marks said he felt administrative leave should have 
the same level of legitimacy that faculty leave has attained; that 
is, it should be recognized that the leave is for the purpose of 
professional development. Chairman Crain said he was concerned 
about the administrator who takes leave at the end of a term of 
office, but who does not return to the faculty. Trustee Krumsiek 
said that he felt there should be some guarantee that the admini- 
strator would return to the University at the end of the leave, 
either as an administrator or as a member of the faculty. Mr. 
Kaludis said the proposed policy was at attempt to regularize 
these leaves, rather than to determine each instance on an ad hoc 
basis. Trustee Marks said that although he would like to see the 
salary for the administrative leave be a negotiable figure, if 
this appeared to be difficult to administer, he would agree to the 
policy as proposed with the understanding that it could be re- 
viewed at a later date. President Patterson said he agreed with 
Trustee Marks that it would be a relatively simple price to pay 

-6- 



I 



r 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in order to have a policy which would alleviate the problems that 
have arisen through the lack of any policy. Chairman Crain sug- 
gested that the Committee might wish to take this matter under 
advisement. Trustee Marks said he could accept the policy with 
the amendments suggested. Trustee Krumsiek said he would be com- 
fortable with the stipulation that the administrator would return 
to the University at the end of the leave. Ms. Pinck said she 
wondered if the actual amount of salary was worth the hassle of 
rewording the policy, as she felt the difference would probably 
be negligible. Trustee Marks said he appreciated the work that 
had gone into the formulation of the policy. 

There being no further questions, on motion made and sec- 
onded, it was 



VOTED . 



and 



VOTED: 



and further, 
VOTED : 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt 
the policy on salaries for academic administra- 
tors as contained in Doc. T78-070A; 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt 
the policy on leave for academic administra- 
tors as contained in Doc. T78-071A, as amended; 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt 
the policy on named professorships as contained 
in Doc. T78-069A. 



Chairman Crain then asked Ms. Hanson to present the last 
agenda item, the matter of the Continuing Resolution . Ms. Hanson 
explained that this vote was necessary in order to allow the Uni- 
versity to operate until such time as the FY1979 budget was passec 
by the Legislature. 

On motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED: To recommend to the Board of Trustees that 
the President be authorized to approve and 
adopt the policies and procedures governing 
the expenditure of state and non-state funds 
by the three campuses, the Office of the 
President and the Institute for Governmental 
Services from July 1, 1978 until such time 
as the Board of Trustees adopts the Operat- 
ing Budget for Fiscal Year 1979. The ap- 
proval of expenditure of said funds shall be 
consistent with the applicable state statutes 
governing the FY1979 appropriation and in 
accordance with trustee policy. 

Chairman Crain said that he wished to mention an item not 
on the agenda of this Committee. In the materials presented to 
the Committee on Student Affairs, he said, he had noted something 



-7- 



B & F 
5/30/78 



Continuing 
Resolution 



B & F 
5/30/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

which concerned him. The documentation on the proposal to allow 
juniors at UM/Amherst to live off campus referred to the possi- 
bility of temporary reductions in refurbishing and maintenance 
as a means of covering any shortfall in the residence halls re- 
sulting from this policy. He said he would very much dislike to 
see this happen. Mr. Beatty replied that this would be a last 
resort, which he did not anticipate would be necessary. Trustee 
Marks said that seemed to him this policy would be adopted at 
the risk of the students' having to pay higher rents. Mr. Beatty 
replied that such was the case, but there would be a lag between 
the time a shortfall would become evident and an increase in rent 
could be imposed. This was a stop gap measure against such an 
eventuality. Chairman Crain and Trustee Marks both indicated 
that they would find this an unacceptable solution and asked that 
before such a plan was implemented, the Trustees have an oppor- 
tunity to discuss alternatives. Mr. Lynton said that the risk to 



the students of a raise in rents as a result of the proposed 



I 



policy had been pointed out to them at the Student Affairs meeting 

Mr. Kaludis said he wished to introduce an item not on the 
agenda. He informed the Committee that Ms. Hanson was leaving 
the University to become the Executive Director of the Consortium 
for Financing Higher Education. He said he wished to take this 
opportunity to express his gratitude to her, as he felt that 
University had been extremely fortunate in having her services 
during the transitional period. Her talent and skill, he said, 
went far beyond what was seen in the documentation developed in 
the budget office, and her good relations with the campuses was 
part of the "glue" that held the University together. He said 
he would be sorry to see her go, but her new position would be a 
professional challenge. Chairman Crain and Mr. Lynton seconded 
Mr. Kaludis' sentiments. 

Ms. Hanson responded, thanking everyone for the sense of 
humor and understanding which had been shown in time of need. 
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 
3:45 p.m. 




* 



\Mb^ 



)hn F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary of 
the University 



-8- 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

June 14, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 

Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 

Office of the President 

One Washington Mall 

Boston, Massachusetts 

ATTENDANCE: Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President Patter- 
son; Trustees Burack and Popko; Ms. Pinck representing Trustee 
Dukakis; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer and Morgenthau 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Gilmore, Special Assistant to the President; Mr. 
Harris, Project Director, Title XX; Mr. Richard Lyons, Associate 
Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Weiner, Assistant Vice 
President for Academic Affairs 

UM/Amherst: Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 



1 



I 



Provost; Mr. Nolan, Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Fine Arts 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost 

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. by Chair- J 
man Troy, who introduced the first agenda item, Change of Name of | 
Institute for Man and Environment to the Environmental Institute— f 



UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-094) , saying that this was "another attack 
on the ramparts of anthropocentricism. " At the request of Chair- 
man Troy, Mr. Lynton reviewed the evolution of the name of the 
institute, which began in 1971 as the Institute for Man and His 
Environment and several years later became the Institute for Man 
and Environment. The campus is now requesting the more euphoni- 
ous title, the Environmental Institute. There were no objections 
to this proposed change, and on motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees redesignate 
the Institute for Man and Environment at the Univer- 
sity of Massachusetts at Amherst as the Environ- 
mental Institute, as set forth in Document T78-094. 

Chairman Troy next asked Mr. Lynton to introduce the 
second agenda item, Interdepartmental Majors in Linguistics and 
Psychology and Linguistics and Anthropology — UM/Amherst . Mr . 
Lynton said that this matter was being brought to the Committee 
for information only since the Board, in the belief that inter- 
disciplinary majors should be encouraged, had in 1974 approved 
the establishment of interdepartmental majors in areas where 
majors already existed. Mr. Lynton added that the campus had 



UM/Amherst- — 
Change of Name 
of Institute 
for Man and 
Environment to 
Environmental 
Institute 
(Doc. T78-094) 






UM/Amherst — 
Interdepart- 
mental Majors 
in Linguistics 
and Psychology 
and Linguistics 
and Anthropology 



F&EP 
6/14/78 



Status Report 
on Title XX 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

assured the Central Administration that there were no resource 
implications in the proposal. Trustee Burack said that she was 
pleased to hear this and to learn of these interdepartmental 
majors, as she felt there should be many more. She said she had 
noted in the Faculty Senate minutes concern about the delay in 
the establishment of another such program involving Computer 
Science. 

Chairman Troy asked how many interdisciplinary majors 
had been established in the College of Arts and Sciences. Mr. 
Allen replied that there were at least a half dozen, including 
Judiac Studies, Eastern Studies, Journalism and Political Science 
Journalism and English, Social Thought and Political Economy, 
Linguistics and several other majors. Trustee Burack asked 
whether there was a program combining Linguistics and Philosophy. 
Mr. Allen replied that the programs were closely allied, as there 
were two joint appointments in these areas. Trustee Burack re- 
called that Professor Brogan had commented that it would be less 
than true to say that there would be no resource implications for 
the proposed program in Computer and Information Science, and 
asked if this applied also to these interdisciplinary majors, at 
least in the initial phase. Mr. Allen replied that there would 
be additional costs for the Computer Science program, but not for 
the others. He said there was actually no undergraduate major in 
Linguistics, but several courses were offered by the Department. 

Chairman Troy next asked for a Status Report on Title 
XX . Mr. Lynton introduced this topic, saying that this program 
was one of intrinsic value to the University, but that it was a 
very complex project involving many state agencies and several 
units of the University. He then introduced the Project Director 
Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris explained that the work of the project 
revolved around a series of workshops and the development of a 
competency-based core curriculum for human service providers. He 
said that the project provided a great opportunity for the Univer- 
sity, but that at the same time, working with the Department of 
Public Welfare was a cause of frustration. He said the primary 
function of the University staff who were working on the project 
was the development of a model educational program in human serv- 
ices. No other state, he said had attempted to do so using this 
type of funding. He said that curriculum development involved 
the planning of the core curriculum, the specification of compe- 
tencies, and the provision of pilot programs, their evaluation 
and revision, and the preparation of curriculum manuals and texts 

Among the pilot offerings, he said, were courses in 
human development, interviewing and data collection, racial and 
cultural influences on the delivery of human services, dynamics 
of the human service workplace, and rights and entitlements under 
Title XX. The workshops, he continued, were for staff of commun- 
ity residences, primarily for adolescents, and staff working with 
children who were referred by the courts to the program entitled, 



■2- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

"Children in Need of Service." Personnel working on the project, 
he said, included staff of the UM/Boston College of Public and 
Community Service and staff of the School of Education and the 
Continuing Education program at UM/Amherst, as well as people 
from the field of human services. 

Chairman Troy asked how many people the programs would 
accommodate, and Mr. Harris replied that the pilot programs would 
enroll approximately 250 persons; the workshops would accommodate 
another 200 to 300. It was anticipated that approximately half 
of those enrolled in the programs would receive statements of 
competency. The core curriculum would be offered at UM/Boston 
and UM/Amherst, and the workshops would be held at six regional 
sites — at UM/Amherst, UM/Boston, and at state facilities or 
motels with adequate accommodations in the other regions. The 
courses are provided at no cost to the participants. This year 
the University had a contract in the amount of $967,000, of which 
75 percent will come from the federal government through the 
state Department of Public Welfare. The University will bill the 
state for 72 percent of the cost and the DPW must then put in a 
claim to the federal government for reimbursement. One of the 
greatest problems, said Mr. Harris, is determining who is eligible 
to participate in the program. Only people who work in programs 
funded through Title XX funds are eligible, even though other 
people may be providing similar services. 

Chairman Troy asked if DPW was contributing its share 
of the cost of the program. Mr. Harris said that the reply to 
this question was complicated. The federal regulations require 
that the states provide a 25 percent matching share to the fed- 
eral 75 percent reimbursement. Theoretically, this match could 
come from the state agencies. However, at this time the agencies 
have been unable to document contributions totaling 25 percent. 
Until the agencies are able to do so, the educational institu- 
tions under contract with DPW have carried the burden through in- 
kind contributions. 

Trustee Burack asked if there were some means of making 
eligible for the programs those people who do work in the human 
services area, but who are not paid through Title XX funds. Mr. 
Harris said that this matter was being pursued. Trustee Burack 
asked if an attempt was being made to evaluate the program. Mr. 
Harris replied that the University was evaluating its part of the 
project but he did not believe much was being done in the way of 
evaluation by the DPW. Chairman Troy asked if there were budget- 
ary implications for the University as a result of this program. 
Mr. Harris said that this year those University units participat- 
ing would receive funding for curriculum development and delivery 
The overhead was provided for within the contract. Mr. Lynton 
said that actually this was a capacity building program, reaching 
out to people who need service and at the same time enabling the 
University to increase its teaching potential in this area. 



-3- 



F&EP 
6/14/78 



F&EP 
6/14/78 



UM/ Amherst , 
UM/Boston — 
1978 Tenure 
Awards 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Popko asked if there was assurance of continued funding 
for the program. Mr. Harris said that because of the late start 
this year (the contract was amended as late as March) , there was 
agreement that there would be a continuation of funding at the 
present level for another year. 

Trustee Popko said that she could see where the materi- 
als developed for this program would be of value to private or- 
ganizations working on similar projects. She asked if this ma- 
terial would be disseminated to such organizations. Mr. Harris 
said that he could see this as a possibility. Trustee Popko said 
that foundations might be interested in funding such a worthwhile 
undertaking. 

Chairman Troy asked what the range of offerings would 
be. Mr. Harris replied that the attempt was to dispense the 
knowledge, skills and intervention strategies necessary to become 
a good human service worker. Among the subjects which could be 
considered, for instance, were the matters of runaway and abused 
children. Trustee Burack said she hoped the University could 
move ahead with this type of human service program. 

Chairman Troy asked next for discussion of the 1978 
Tenure Awards — UM/Amherst and UM/Boston (Supplement II to Doc. 
T78-089). At the request of Chairman Troy, Mr. Lynton made a few 
general remarks before the Committee moved to go into executive 
session. Mr. Lynton said that a total of 46 names were being 
submitted to the Committee for consideration and possible recom- 
mendation to the Board for their concurrence. These, he said, 
were in addition to those persons considered at the last Commit- 
tee meeting. The President had acted favorably on and was asking 
for Board concurrence in the award of tenure to 52 of the 66 per- 
sons initially reviewed at the departmental level. Thirteen of 
those recommended, he said, were women and six were minorities, 
not mutually exclusive. 

The tenure review process, explained Mr. Lynton, was 
slow since the University's Academic Personnel Policy requires 
that at every level where there is a question, additional infor- 
mation or clarification be requested. This gave ultimate protec- 
tion to faculty members. Two cases were still awaiting further 
information and two more were still being reviewed, all from 
Amherst. These could come to the Committee before the August 
Board meeting. This delay, added Mr. Lynton, did not necessarily 
have any negative implication with regard to merit. 

Trustee Burack stated her concern about the five areas 
which were approaching 100 percent tenured faculty. She said she 
was a believer in the contract system as an alternative that woulc 
be put into effect along with granting tenure. Mr. Lynton agreed 
that high tenure percentages were a problem for the University, 
but in these instances it had been felt they were justified and 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



i m 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the justification would be given during the executive session. 
He said also that he felt there should be more consideration 
given to professional activity such as the dissemination of 
knowledge, as opposed to original research. Trustee Burack added 
that, on the matter of publications, she hoped that differentia- 
tions were made between scholarly publications and vanity press 
publications, those that would publish for a fee regardless of 
the merit of the work. Mr. Allen replied that this matter was 
very closely scrutinized by the review committees before making 
tenure recommendations. He added that practices differed among 
various disciplines and also that payment made for publication 
did not necessarily mean lack of quality in the work being pub- 
lished. 

Mr. Lynton reiterated that he believed more recognition 
should be given to those individuals who did scholarly work other 
than publishing, such as, for example, compiling textbooks and 
developing new teaching methods. Chairman Troy pointed out with 
regard to the high tenure percentage in the English Department 
that several of the faculty were reaching retirement age. Ms. 
Pinck questioned the fact that at least one faculty member was 
being recommended for tenure without a corresponding recommenda- 
tion for promotion in rank. Mr. Lynton replied that the new per- 
sonnel policy requires that any tenure recommendation without 
recommended promotion, with the exception of those persons who 
were promoted a year earlier, be accompanied by special justifi- 
cation. 

Ms. Pinck raised the issue of time spent in consulting 
activities, and questioned whether such activities were pursued to 
the detriment of undergraduate students. Mr. Allen responded 
that the University had a policy with respect to this matter, 
limiting consulting work to one day a week and stipulating that 
it had to be of value to the University as well as to the indi- 
vidual. Clarifying a point, Mr. Lynton explained that when he 
mentioned professional activity as a consideration when recom- 
mending tenure, he had been referring to activities such as an 
institute on writing which was being given this summer to aid 
elementary and secondary teachers, and not to consulting activi- 
ties. As to grants and contracts, he said, these were monitored 
by the Office of Grants and Contract Administration, and faculty 
could not get paid from grants during the academic year. They 
could in the summer earn up to 25 percent of their total salary 
from grants. 

Chairman Troy asked how the University compared with 
the national average for tenured faculty. Mr. Lynton replied 
that the University average was 70 percent, not including vacan- 
cies, and 66 percent if vacancies were considered. Ms. Pinck 
added that the national average for public institutions was in 
the low 60' s; for private institutions, in the low 50 's; and for 
the more prestigious private colleges, even lower. 



-5- 



F&EP 
6/14/78 



F&EP 
6/14/78 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Troy asked if there were projections for the 
next five years — whether the tenure percentage would go up or 
down. Mr. Lynton said that this year the University was seeing 
the end of the big hiring wave which occurred as a result of ex- 
pansion in the early 70' s. The tenure recommendations this year 
had numbered about half those in the recent past. The impact of 
the change in the retirement age, however, was an unknown factor. 
Trustee Popko asked when it was anticipated that the University 
would reach 10Q percent tenure. Mr. Lynton said he did not ex- 
pect this would happen. It was likely to reach 80 percent in the 
1980' s. Trustee Burack said that the high tenure percentage was 
the reason she was opposed to initial appointments with tenure, 
as they were the cause of losing good, young faculty. She said 
she was in favor of keeping these young faculty under contract 
until such time as tenure slots opened up. She added that ten- 
ured faculty were in part responsible for the present situation, 
as when tenure quotas were proposed as a solution to this problem 
some years ago, the faculty had rejected the proposal. 

The general discussion was concluded at this point, and 
on motion made and seconded, at 11:17 a.m. on roll call it was 

VOTED : To enter executive session for the purpose of dis- 
cussing individual tenure recommendations. 

Trustees Burack, Popko and Chairman Troy, and M. Pinck 
representing Trustee Dukakis voted for the motion. Trustees 
Breyer and Morgenthau were absent. President Patterson was not 
present when the vote was taken. 

At 12:25 p.m. it was agreed to end the executive ses- 
sion and to return to open session for the purpose of taking ac- 
tion on the tenure recommendations. On motion made and seconded, 
it was then 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur in 
the President's award of tenure to those faculty 
members at UM/Amherst and UM/ Boston named in Sup- 
plement II to Trustee Document T78-089, effective 
September, 1978. 

It was further 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur in 
the President's offer of an award of tenure to 
Dr. Harold C. Gotoff. 

There being no further business, the meeting was ad- 
journed at 12:27 p.m. 



I 




(L^CyC-JLt^X 



Dorothy Eicael 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



-6- 



I 



■ 



1 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
LONG-RANGE PLANNING 

June 14, 1978; 3:00 p.m. 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
Office of the President 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Marks, President 
Patterson; Trustees Kassler, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Sawtelle, and 
Troy; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Member : Trustee Robertson 

Other Trustees : Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Bondy, Assistant Vice President for University Rela- 
tions; Mr. Lyons, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; 
Ms. Veith, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
| Provost; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Professor Smith, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Bice, Hospital Director 

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Chair- UM/Worcester — 
man Marks, who introduced the first agenda item, The One-and Five| The One-and 
Year Plan for the University Hospital — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-09^) . Five-Year 
He then called on Mr. Bice to give some background on this subject. Plan for the 
'Mr. Bice explained that the format of the document was determined; University 
to a large extent by the requirements of legislation adopted by Hospital 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1976. (Doc. T78-099) 

Also impacting on the document were requirements of 
federal legislation on health services. The report had been 
developed from information requested of each clinical chairman 
and had been reviewed by the Hospital Management Board. It was 
then forwarded to the Office of the President and further reviewed 
and amended. Mr. Lynton added that the document was only a part 
of the plans for the Medical Center and was being presented at 
this time as a result of the previously mentioned federal and 
state regulations. A more comprehensive report would be presented 
to the Committee later in the year. 

Trustee Popko remarked that the document was important 
in that no certificate of need would be issued for equipment not 
mentioned in it. Chairman Marks said that whereas the document 
before the Committee addressed itself primarily to the statutory 



L-RP 

6/14/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

requirements for a one-and a five-year plan for the Hospital, he 
anticipated that future documents would go into more detail about 
the actual plans for the Medical Center. Mr. Bice replied that 
although the campus would continue to be required to file docu- 
ments on the Hospital each year to meet statutory requirements, it 
was his understanding that the campus was to develop long-range 
plans which would incorporate the Medical and Group Practice as 
well. 

Trustee Sawtelle asked if the Hospital had worked with 
community groups to provide community services. Mr. Bice replied 
that several cooperative projects were underway. Mr. Lynton added 
that many of these cooperative efforts did not appear in the docu-f 
ment circulated because it dealt only with the Hospital, and a 
large number of projects involved the Medical School rather than 
the Hospital. 



Referring to a comment made earlier by Mr. Bice, Trustee; 
Kassler asked why it had not been possible for the Worcester Con- 
sortium of Affiliated Hospitals to prepare a joint submission of 
the^one-and five-year plan of each . Mr. Bice replied that the Con-i 
sortium was still rather new and that it took time, possibly a 
decade, to acquire the confidence and cooperation necessary for 
such a joint report. He thought it would be possible at some time 
in the future. 



I 



Kassler asked what the proposed new satellite mentioned 
in the report would be. Mr. Bice replied that it would be a 
facility similar to that in Uxbridge, but at a location yet to be 
determined. 

Trustee Sawtelle asked if provisions had been made for 
life safety inspections and other statutory requirements. Mr. 
Bice replied that although this was not addressed in the document, 
the various organizations that pay the University for services do 
send inspectors to the sites of the services. 

Trustee Popko noted that a full body scanner was re- 
quested in 1978 and another in 1980. Mr. Bice said that as the 
clinical departments grow, there would be a need for an additional 
scanner. It was anticipated that the cost of such equipment will 
be less in the future. At the present time, a scanner costs 
$735,000. 

There was no further discussion and on motion made and 
seconded it was 

VOTED: To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 

one- and five-year Plan for the University Hospital, 
UM/Worcester , as detailed in Trustee Document 
T78-099, for submission to the appropriate agencies. 

Trustee Popko asked if in the future the oae-and five-year 
plan for the Hospital would be submitted on time. Mr. Bice said 
he anticipated that they would be. 

-2- 



I 



I 



1 



I 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Marks turned to the second agenda item, The 
University's Role in Adult and Continuing Education . President 
Patterson said that he was not entirely satisfied with the title 
for the topic, but could not find better words at the moment. 
The title was not appropriate to the nature of the problems of 
planning and policy development for continuing education which 
the Committee needed to address. He then referred to a report 
prepared under the direction of Ms . Pinck of the Executive Of- 
fice of Educational Affairs, Student Need and Demands for Post- 
Secondary Education in Massachusetts , saying that this excellent 
report underscored the need for policy development in this area, 
as the boundaries between regular and evening programs became 
less clear. He asked if Ms. Pinck could provide copies of the 
report for the Committee. She replied that there had been many 
requests and she was not sure copies were available; however, it 
would be appropriate for University staff to duplicate pertinent 
sections for the use of the Committee. 

President Patterson said the University was lucky in the 
respect that it had not progressed too far as yet in the matter 
of continuing education programs, and therefore, could avoid 
some of the pitfalls which had troubled other institutions. He 
then summarized his own views, which he said were in agreement 
with the report submitted to the Committee a year ago, as devel- 
oped by the University-wide Subcommittee on Adult and Continuing 
Education in January, 1977, and resubmitted for discussion at 
this meeting. His summary is as follows: 

It is very important that the University increase its capa- 
city to serve potential students other than the traditional 
post-high school age group. 

In particular, the University should do so by extending to 
new clienteles the available expertise existing in the in- 
stitution by providing only programs which are at a level 
and in fields appropriate to the distinct mission of the 
University. 

This extension should be viewed as an integral part of the 
central educational mission of the University, taught to the 
greatest possible extent by its regular faculty. 

The initiative and responsibility for these extensions must 
therefore be assumed by the faculties of all departments, 
colleges and campuses with the necessary encouragement and 
support from the administration at every level. 

President Patterson said he was opposed to the develop- 
ment of programs solely as a means of obtaining non-state funds 
for the University. The programs developed should be of true 
University quality. Trustee Troy agreed and said he was enor- 
mously impressed with the philosophy stated. 



-3- 



L-RP 
6/14/78 

The Univer- 
sity's Role in 
Adult and Con- 
tinuing Educa- 
tion 



L-RP 
6/14/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Marks remarked that some people consider con- 
tinuing education to be less legitimate than regular education. 
Even some faculty seemed to hold this view. Mr. Allen explained 
that for several years the University had requested state fund- 
ing for continuing education programs. The Legislature had de- 
nied this funding because of the strong feeling on the part of 
some that the University should not be involved in this type of 
education. Several years ago, a continuing education trust fund 
had been established, as the programs had to be self-supporting; 
the programs were limited, and resources did not allow salaries 
conducive to attracting regular faculty. Therefore, much of the 
teaching was by graduate students and part-time faculty. Since 
resources were limited, whenever new programs were initiated, 
something else had to be curtailed. 

Chairman Marks said that any plans developed to improve i 
continuing education programs would be self-defeating if there 
is a built-in faculty prejudice. Professor Brogan said that he 
had taught in continuing education programs and had found that 
older students were highly motivated and a pleasure to teach. 
Some of his best students were in this category. The major prob-r- 
lem with continuing education programs was lack of equipment and 
instructional materials and this added to the difficulties of 
obtaining good instructors. 

Discussion continued as to how extended-day and con- 
tinuing education programs could be reclassified so as to indi- 
cate that they were identical in quality to the regular programs, 
It was the consensus that the programs taught should be of Uni- 
versity level caliber and should not include subjects such as, 
for example, knitting or income tax preparation. There was 
agreement that the University should reach out to this new cli- 
entele, and that it should ensure that they received university- 
level education; and that there was no faculty opposition to 
older, non-traditional students, only to the teaching of non- 
traditional courses such as the topics mentioned above. Trustee 
Troy observed that it was unfortunate that the term "extended- 
day" was often confused with extension courses. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the University must 
find ways of reaching out to those persons who have completed 
partial credit for degrees, and those who already have degrees, 
and to find ways to grant credit for life experiences, none of 
which had been addressed on the Boston campus except in the Col- 
lege of Public and Community Service. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said she thought that those who 
opposed continuing education did so on the grounds of the limite- 
resources and the belief that the University faculty was spread- 
ing itself too thin to be able to offer the quality of teaching 
of a university-level institution. 

Ms. Pinck added that the 1202 Commission and the Execu- 
tive Office of Educational Affairs were looking into this whole 
area. Part of the problem, which resulted in the "marketing" 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of continuing education programs, was that the Legislature re- 
fused to support such programs. Also, the fact that these pro- 
grams were held in low esteem did not necessarily mean that they 
were of poor quality. She said she was concerned that trying to 
assimilate these programs into the regular offerings might tend 
to eliminate some of the innovative and exciting things that were 
being done. 

President Patterson said that he felt the establishment 
of the College of Public and Community Service was one of the 
best things the University had done, as it had stirred interest 
in competency-based education and innovative programs. Chairman 
Marks cautioned that some innovative programs started up with a 
great deal of enthusiasm, but when the enthusiasm wore off, the 
funding disappeared and the students who were in the programs 
were shortchanged. 

Trustee Troy said he found it difficult to discuss this 
matter without knowing what the numbers of potential students 
were. Mr. Lynton said the numbers were substantial. For in- 
stance, some 50 engineering students were taking masters' courses 
at a location on Route 128. Other such programs could increase 
enrollments at both UM/Amherst and UM/Boston. At UM/Amherst, he 
said, there were still more applicants to the traditional pro- 
grams than the campus could accommodate and substantial develop- 
ment of off-campus programs would require an increase in total 
enrollment. At UM/Boston, on the other hand, it would be neces- 
sary to attract non-traditional students in order to attain the 
enrollment targets for the campus. 

Trustee Troy said, aside from the intrinsic value of 
these programs, they would also compensate for the projections 
as to the decline in traditional students. Ms. Pinck said that 
traditional enrollments were declining nationally and that they 
were declining faster in New England than in other parts of the 
country. However, the decline was chiefly in the private sector 
with a corresponding shift to the public sector. Some statis- 
tics indicated that the decline would be from 18 to 25 percent 
by 1982. The largest increase in enrollment was by the segment 
of adult learners, but a large number of these adult learners 
were getting their educational experiences from non-academic 
structures. Also, the number was undoubtedly inflated because 
of unemployment. People who were unable to find jobs were en- 
rolling in courses. Mr. Lynton noted that although fewer people 
might be taking self-improvement courses, there was an increase 
in the number of lower and middle management persons seeking pro 
fessional refreshment, relicensing and recertif ication courses. 
Ms. Pinck also noted that the students who dropped out of col- 
lege in the late 1960's and early 1970 's were now dropping back 
in, which postponed the date when the decline in enrollments 
would cause problems in public higher education. 

Trustee Kassler suggested that the Committee should con 
sider the effect that reorganization would have on this whole 



-5- 



L-RP 
6/14/78 



L-RP 
6/14/78 



Reorganization 
of Public 
Higher Educa- 
tion 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

area; also, whether there should be development of satellite pro- 
grams, which he did not favor. It was important to know what thk 
other segments were doing in order to plan wisely. 

Chairman Marks said this was a broad subject and de- 
serving of much discussion, but it was necessary to go on to the 
third agenda item. He said that had this discussion occurred 
six months ago, the University might now have a program which it 
could defend when the subject of reorganization was broached. 

Chairman Marks then turned to the subject of Reorgani- 
zation of Public Higher Education . He said that a special Legis- 
lative Commission was preparing to study this matter. At an 
earlier meeting, the Committee had discussed the advisability of 
members of the various segments of public higher education meet- 
ing to discuss reorganization with the hope that there could be 
agreement on various positions. The chief executives of the 
segments had since held several meetings. He said that he felt 
it would be dangerous both for the segments and for the Legis- 
lative Committee to let the Commission do all the planning with 
the segments responding only at the end of the process. It would 
be better for the segments to work together toward a framework 
which all could endorse. Otherwise, there would undoubtedly be 
political pressure by the various segments to kill the plan if 
it did not suit the best interests of each. He said the only 
activity to date of which he was aware was meetings of the chief 
executives and discussions by Trustees of the various segments. 
He then called on President Patterson to summarize the discus- 
sions by the chief executives. 

President Patterson said that several plans for the re- 
organization had been advanced in the recent past — the Cronin 
plan of several years back, the Harrington/Wood plan a year or 
so ago, and the recent Parks/Pinck plan. The segment heads had 
been meeting to find a way to move sensibly toward a plan that 
would work. They were trying to test the possibility of obtain- 
ing broad consensus among the segments. The segment heads had 
been meeting as frequently as every month to discuss the matter 
and to try to come to an accommodation for the benefit of their 
common interests. There were large vested interests to contend 
with, he said. The segment heads leaned toward the idea of a 
coordinating central board rather than a central governing board , 
but one which would have more power than the present Board of 
Higher Education. In addition to meetings of the segment heads, 
there had also been several meetings of a larger group including 
the presidents of the various state and community colleges as 
well as the segment heads. There had been less consensus at 
this level, he said. One of the problems, was the setup whereby 
there was a Secretary of Educational Affairs intervening between 
the Chancellor of Higher Education and the rest of the Adminis- 
tration of the state and to some degree the Legislature. 

President Patterson said there was no willingness among 
most public sector leaders as yet to talk about anything in the 
way of serious change. Chairman Marks suggested that there was 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

also difficulty in that each segment head was representing his 
particular Board of Trustees, and it was at the Trustee level that 
the degree of flexibility must be determined. If the Trustees 
were willing to take some risks, the climate of the meetings of 
the segment heads would change. He said he had had discussions 
with some of the Chairmen and members of the other segment Boards 
and they were looking to the University for guidance. Until the 
Boards state their positions, the segment heads cannot take any 
firm actions. There must be consultation at the Board level as 
well as at the level of the segment heads. President Patterson 
said that discussions among the segments to date had been very 
informal for the reasons stated by the Chairman. He said he felt 
that a task force should be formed to take the initiative. 
Trustee Troy asked if there had been much discussion as to the 
kind of governing board that should be formed, or whether regional - 
ization had been of more concern. He suggested that if consensus 
could be reached on the kind of governing board that was desirabld, 
the other problems could be more easily resolved. Trustee Kassler 
said that transferring governing boards was really transferring 
power, and he felt it would be better to deal with programs 
rather than governing boards. He said that it was in the field 
of programs that the Legislative Commission would lack expertise 
to make decisions. Trustee Sawtelle suggested that the President 
should be given flexibility, as an experienced administrator, to 
partake in discussions in this regard. President Patterson re- 
minded the Committee that the former President had met with prob- 
lems as a result of lack of direction from the Board. Al- 
though the President should have lots of input, he needed to know 
the Board's sentiments. He expressed the view that a small group 
could best wrestle with the problem. 

Chairman Marks said that the other segment Boards were 
discussing reorganization at the Board level and he felt the 
University should parallel their actions. Once the sentiments of 
the various Boards were known, then further action could be taken 
at the level of the chief executives. He said that the Committee 
on Long-Range Planning had been given the charge to act as the 
lead agent for the Board of Trustees in this matter. He said 
that possibly the Committee should discuss with other Trustees 
what form its deliberations should take. 



There was no further business, and the meeting adjournec 
at 5:00 p.m. 




John F. Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary 



-7- 



L-RP 
6/14/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF 
TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON AUDITS 

June 21, 1978; 9:00 a.m. 
Office of the President 
Fourteenth Floor Conference Room 
One Washington Mall 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Dennis; Trustee Crain; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Fielding 

Other Trustees : Trustee Dion 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business 
Services; Mr. Hog an, University Controller 

_UM/ Amherst : Mr. McBee, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance 

UM/Boston Mr. Drinkwater, Controller 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Bice, Hospital Director; Mr. Cathey, Con- 
troller 



Guests : Messrs. Fitzgerald and Pill, Students, UM/ Amherst; 
Baran and Christensen, Ernst & Ernst, Certified Public 
Messrs. Beecher, McDermott and Moriarity, Peat, 
Certified Public Accountants 



Messrs 

Accountants ; 

•Marwick, Mitchell & Co, 



The meeting came to order at 9:15 a.m. Mr. Kaludis 
reported on several non-agenda items. The University had 
received the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's 
final position on the disallowances stemming from HEW's audits 
of the School of Education's research grant activities. The 
final disallowances totalled $80,464, a substantial reduction 
from HEW's earlier "final" figure of $364,000. Prior to making 
payment the University would continue its efforts to reduce the 
impact of the settlement by asking HEW to deduct the amount 
disallowed from the University's accumulated roll-forward 
credits in indirect costs rather than paying in cash. 

In the matter of the search for a Director of Auditing, 
Mr. Kaludis said that negotiations were continuing with the 
most acceptable candidate ■ The Committee would be kept informed 
of developments in this area. Finally, a draft Request For 
Proposal for FY 1979 audits of the auxiliary enterprises at 
Amherst had been received. The draft would be put Into final 
form and submitted to the Committee for its consideration. 



c 



Comm. on Audits 
6/21/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Ull/Worcester — 
Entrance Con- 
ference with 
Ernst & Ernst 
on Hospital and 
Group Practice 
Audits 



At this point, Messrs. Baran and Christensen joined 
the meeting and the Committee held an Entrance Conference 
with Ernst & Ernst on the Hospital and Group Practice Audits . 
Mr. Kaludis said that the selection of Ernst & Ernst as audi- 
tors for the Group Practice and the Hospital represented the 
first full auditor selection cycle under the new audit proto- 
cols. That is, the campus had established the specifications 
and these had been examined by the Central Administration and 
the Audit Committee; proposals had been sought, received and 
evaluated; and a consensus had been reached that Ernst & Ernst 
was the most qualified firm. The firm had extensive experience 
in auditing health care facilities and had previously worked on 
the Worcester Campus. Mr. Kaludis said that it was to be 
expected that the first audit would find many areas where 
improvements would have to be made. The succeeding audit would 
be the real test — that is, to see if the needed improvements 
had been made. It was hoped that Ernst & Ernst would make 
suggestions for improvement even prior to the completion of the 
audit so that changes could be made during the course of the 
fiscal year. 

Chairman Dennis noted that with the establishment of 
the Audit Committee the audit process of the University had 
changed. In the past the campuses had dealt directly with 
auditing firms throughout the process. In forming the Commit- 
tee the Trustees had decided, and properly so, that audits were 
the responsibility of the Board and that auditors should report 
to it through the Audit Committee. Chairman Dennis said that 
he hoped that there was no longer any confusion about the 
reporting mechanism. He then asked Messrs. Baran and Christen- 
sen if they had any problems with the specifications or the 
schedule laid out in the contract. Mr. Christensen said that 
his firm agreed with the proposition that the audit reports 
should be addressed to the Audit Committee. Also, the time 
frame laid out presented no problem. 

Mr. Christensen said the staff necessary to do 
the audit was now being assembled and an entrance conference 
with campus representatives would soon be held. Preliminary 
matters had already been discussed with Mr. Cathey. 

In the Ernst & Ernst proposal, Mr. Christensen 
continued, certain financial reporting considerations were laid 
out which the Trustees might want to address at the policy 
level; that is, in assembling the financial statements, what 
should be included and what might be excluded. Mr. Christensen 
said he thought there might be some concern among management 
and perhaps among the Trustees in the public presentation of 
financial information. In 1977, Ernst & Ernst had prepared a 
study for the Medical Center which made recommendations as to 
how the Center might improve its internal reporting structure. 
It now seemed timely to make recommendations regarding external 
reporting. One result of the 1977 report had been a meeting 



I 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

at Worcester concerning the recommendations. At that meeting 
it had been agreed that there were policy considerations 
involved which would have to be addressed by the Board and that 
the auditors would need direction on such issues. 

Mr. Christensen said the best way to approach this 
might be to raise the issues with management and, in cases 
where the auditors and management disagreed, the matter could 
be referred to the Audit Committee. Chairman Dennis said this 
was a good idea; however, care would have to be taken that this 
would not result in delaying the audit. Mr. Kaludis agreed and 
noted that the management referred to was at two levels — the 
Campus and the Central Administration. It would probably be 
the case that most issues could be resolved at those levels and 
that only a few, if any would need Committee resolution. 

Chairman Dennis said that if the auditors encountered 
any other problems which would delay matters, these too should 
be brought to the attention of the Committee. Mr. Christensen 
noted that Ernst & Ernst had served as consultants to the 
Medical Center several times and had yet to come to any impasse 
in working with the Worcester staff and that if differences did 
arise, then the Committee would be informed, not only as to the 
matter at issue, but also as to the pros and cons of suggested 
resolutions. 

In the matter of exit conferences, Chairman Dennis 
said, the Committee endorsed such conferences at the campus 
level. This would give the staff on campus an opportunity to 
discuss problems and proposed solutions and to provide ad- 
ditional information. Obviously, the Committee would like to 
receive the auditor's final report as soon as possible after 
the exit conference* Mr. Christensen said that it was the 
policy of Ernst & Ernst to discuss matters with management 
prior to submitting the final report, in order to make certain 
that the facts were as the auditors understood them to be, and 
that the solutions proposed to solve problems were practical. 
Mr. Christensen concluded by noting that there were areas 
wherein honest differences of opinion could arise as to whether 
an action should be taken or not taken. In those instances, 
Ernst & Ernst would present the issue as they saw it. 

Trustee Grain asked if it was customary for Ernst & 
Ernst to dispatch a management letter soon after the final re- 
port was completed. Mr. Christensen said that last year the 
firm had audited thirteen hospitals. In every case the final 
report was dated September 30, and the management letters were 
dated either December 31 or January 31. Trustee Crain said 
this was very good service. In response to the Chairman's ques- 
tion, Mr. Christensen said that the six month schedule for com- 
pletion given in the University's specification was very gener- 
ous; the firm's schedule called for an earlier completion date. 



Comm. on Audits 
6/21/78 



-3- 



Comm. on Audits 
6/21/78 



UM/Ajiherst — 
Exit Conference 
with Peat, Mar- 
wick, Mitchell 
on FY77 Amherst 
Campus Auxiliary- 
Audits 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Chris tensen then said that it was Ernst & Ernst's 
understanding that what was required was a first year audit. 
The firm would provide the University with financial statements, 
a management letter and with a special report on internal 
controls. The period under audit would be July 1, 1977 to June 
30, 1978. Also, the opinion expressed by the firm at the 
conclusion of the audit would not cover the statement of 
revenues and expenses but would cover the balance sheet. 
Chairman Dennis asked if it would be feasible to expand the 
opinion to include the statement of revenues and expenses. Mr. 
Chris tensen said that if the audit were to be expanded, it 
would be done in this regard and the firm would do so by 
auditing the July 1, 1977 balances, as this would be necessary 
in order to make such an opinion. Mr. Chris tensen said that 
such an expansion was not usually warranted in a first year 
audit because of the cost/benefit considerations. As had 
been pointed out, the comments and recommendations in the 
management letter would cover the key areas. In subsequent 
audits, an opinion on the statement of revenues and expenses 
would have more impact. Mr. Christensen said that if the 
Committee wished to have such an opinion included in the audit, 
his firm would be happy to supply a cost estimate. Chairman 
Dennis said this could be done. 

At this point, Messrs. Christensen and Baran left 
the meeting and the Committee held an Exit Conference with 
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company on FY 1977 Amherst Campus 
Auxiliary Audits . Messrs. Beecher, McDermott and Moriarity, 
representing Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, had been commissioned 
by the Amherst campus, and this might have caused some confu- 
sion regarding the reporting of the auditors, as all audits 
were now to be commissioned by the Audit Committee in the name 
of the Board. Similarly, all reports were to be made to the 
Committee. 

One of the major concerns of the Committee, Chairman 
Dennis continued, was to eliminate delays in receiving the 
final audit report. The University was a multi-level organiza- 
tion and there had been cases in the past where the auditing 
process had been stopped at one level or another. For this 
reason, auditors were now being asked to report such incidents 
to the Committee so that corrective action could be taken. 
Trustee Crain agreed that there were problems. When the 
Committee received a report postmarked May 22 and the field 
work was dated January 6, there was obviously something wrong. 
This was particularly serious because some of the comments 
regarding end-of-year inventories and like matters indicated 
that corrective action should be taken. The delay in receipt 
meant that such action could not be taken until the succeeding 
fiscal year. This could reflect on the auditing firm. Chairman 
Dennis then asked the representatives of Peat, Marwick, & 
Mitchell if they had encountered problems such as this, or any 
other problems, in the just completed audit. 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. McDeraott said that it was good to know that 
the reporting relationship had been sorted out. In the past, 
this had been a matter of serious concern. In the matter of 
time delays, Mr. McDermott said that his firm had spent a 
great deal of time explaining to the campus people just what 
an audit was and what it entailed. Being audited was quite 
new to many staff members. For example, the nature of repre- 
sentation letters, which the auditors were required to obtain, 
had to be spelled out. Mr. McDermott said he did not expect 
that these time-consuming educational exercises would have to 
be repeated in the future. These exercises were probably the 
reason for most of the delay. 

Chairman Dennis asked if the question of the legal 
letters had been solved or was it still impeding the auditors' 
opinion. Mr. McDermott said the question was not fully 
resolved. While the purpose and usefulness of such letters was 
now understood by both campus management and legal counsel, 
there was still an open issue as to whether or not either 
management or counsel could opine on certain specific requests 
made by the auditors as to the handling of certain funds in 
the residence halls. This had yet to be dealt with. 

Mr. Kaludis said there was an honest disagreement as 
to whether it was appropriate for the auditors to request 
certain opinions from the campus counsel. There was no 
problem at all concerning the routine certification of outstand- 
ing funds. The kind of question Mr. McDermott was referring 
to was whether, in order to reach an opinion on a financial 
statement, the legal issues that the auditors had raised 
needed to be answered by the campus counsel. The University, 
while recognizing the validity of the question, took the 
position that if the auditors saw the questions as a problem, 
they should so state in the report. While it was true that 
this problem had been bandied between the auditors and the 
University for some time, Mr. Kaludis said he felt the issue 
was resolved because the University had answered those ques- 
tions that were appropriately answerable. His position was 
based on the advice of University Counsel. The questions 
remaining were reasonable; however, they were being asked out 
of context. 

Mr. McDermott again stated that this matter had 
been discussed at length with counsel and he felt the issue 
was not resolved. For this reason he had qualified the firm's 
opinion on the residence halls' financial statements. Chairman 
Dennis said that this was an issue that would have to be 
resolved. The Trustees did not want an opinion that was 
qualified. Trustee Crain agreed that the matter would have to 
be cleared up. Mr. Moriarity said that the auditors had been 
discussing this matter with campus officials for months in an 
attempt to resolve it so that an unqualified opinion could be 
issued. 



-5- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. McDermott said that one favorable aspect of 
this dispute was that the problems had been encountered and 
fully discussed. A full and inclusive discussion served both 
the interests of the Board and University management. The 
exercise had been useful and had reduced the problems to one 
seemingly irresolvable item. On the basis of the opinion from 
counsel, Mr. McDermott continued, he could remove his qualifica- 
tion from the opinion. 

Mr. Kaludis asked why the opinion on the Residence 
Halls had been qualified and that on the Division of Continuing 
Education had not been, where the auditors had raised the same 
type of questions. Mr. McDermott said that there could be two 
different issues being discussed. If state subsidies were 
being discussed, for example, in the judgement of the auditors 
such subsidies were not as material to the financial statement 
of the Division of Continuing Education as to that of the 
Residence Halls. Mr. Kaludis said the same principle seemed 
to be involved. Trustee Crain said that what was important to 
him was that the auditors, in issuing an unqualified opinion 
on the Continuing Education fund, were staking the reputation 
of their firm. Presumably the auditors had weighed the 
significance of state subsidies to the Residence Hall fund and 
had decided not to risk the firm's reputation. Mr. Moriarity 
said that there were many external factors to be taken into 
account when dealing with the Residence Halls. For example, 
the relations with the Building Authority and the fact that 
there was public debt. Mr. McDermott said that his reading of 
the contractual obligations of the Residence Hall fund led him 
to believe that a legal opinion was needed. 

Chairman Dennis said it did not seem likely that 
the issue could be settled at this meeting. It was something 
the University would have to deal with before the next cycle 
of audits began. Trustee Crain said that however the Univer- 
sity resolved the matter, he appreciated the position the firm 
was in and admired the auditors' determination to stand by 
their principles. 

The meeting then dealt with the general matter of 
the audits of Amherst's auxiliary enterprises. Mr. McDermott 
said it might be of use to provide some background as to the 
scope of the work Peat, Marwick had done. In 1976 the firm 
had audited the Campus Center, the Division of Continuing 
Education and the Residence Halls. In 1977 these divisions 
had again been audited as well as the Dining Commons, Health 
Services and the Parking/Transportation Fund. The firm had 
recently completed a study of the internal controls of the 
student financial aid program. This was in preparation for 
the entire University system's coming into compliance with the 
regulations of HEW. 

Chairman Dennis asked for elaboration on the impact 
of HEW's new regulations. Mr. McDermott said the impact would 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



be University-wide. As of June 30, 1978, any division adminis- 
tering federal student aid grants, specifically the Student 
Supplement of Educational Opportunity Grants, the College 
Work Study Program and the National Direct Student Loans 
Program, would be required to undergo audits covering a minimum 
of two fiscal years. Both a compliance audit and a financial 
audit were mandated. Reports on the audits were to be submit- 
ted to HEW in October, 1979. At present, Mr. McDermott con- 
tinued, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants were exempt 
from these requirements. However, all indications were that in 
the near future every dollar of federal aid would have to be 
audited. 

The reason Peat, Marwick had been engaged for the 
internal controls study of the student aid programs, Mr. 
McDermott said, was to make management aware of any control 
weaknesses in time to take corrective action prior to required 
HEW compliance. One of the new requirements was that the 
reports to HEW were allowed a "zero level of materiality." 
That is, adjustments involving as little as one cent had to be 
reported. In making the compliance audit, auditors were 
required to report any item which they found to be at all 
questionable. HEW was being very threatening in stating what 
actions they would take in dealing with institutions that 
seemed to be out of control. Given the internal controls 
report, the University would be in a position to take any a_ 
priori corrective actions . 

Turning to the Campus Center audit, Mr. McDermott 
said the most significant things were the Management Services 
agreement and the allocation of the debt services between the 
Center and the Parking/Transportation fund. The audit disclosed 
that 19 percent of the FY 1978 debt services had been allocated 
to the Parking Garage. The auditors could find neither docu- 
mentation nor substantiation for this allocation. Certain 
management studies could lead one to believe that the alloca- 
tion was erroneous. This was an area where positive statements 
would be ill-advised but, in fact, there was an arbitrary 
allocation being made which affected the operation of the 
Campus Center and the Parking/Transportation fund. Mr. 
Moriarity said that, in the absence of documentation and of the 
individual who first made the allocation, it was impossible to 
determine the reason why the action was taken. 



Mr. McDermott said that there was a reasonably 
serious liquidity problem at the Campus Center. It was possible 
that this problem was aggravated by the debt services allocation. 
The financial situation of the Center might improve in FY 1979, 
as the Parking Garage operating deficit was no longer the 
responsibility of the Center. However, for the foreseeable 
future, the Center would require close management attention, 
particularly in the matters of operating cost control and the 
level of student fees to ensure that it continued as an operat- 
ing entity. Without the University's commitment to its continu- 



-7- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



ance it would not be classified as an "on-going concern" 
operation, that is, it would be an enterprise which had a 
very uncertain future. 

Mr. McDermott said that the firm had also very 
seriously considered placing an on-going concern opinion on 
the Division of Continuing Education. However, there had 
been a change in management of the Division and some very 
positive steps had been taken. Further, a long-range plan 
had been developed. These, plus the support of the campus 
administration, made prospects for the future of the Divi- 
sion brighter. In the Division there was a significant need 
for improvement in the grants accounting system. The 
Continuing Education report had been delayed, as the 
auditors, in addition to auditing, had had to do accounting 
in the case of the restricted funds. This had been an 
unexpected and time consuming process. 

Mr. Hog an asked if the grants in question were 
from the government. Mr. Moriarity said they were from 
private foundations and organizations, in effect any money 
of a restricted sort. Chairman Dennis asked if the problem 
had been one of being unable to document whether or not the 
funds had been expended in line with the conditions imposed 
by the granting agency. 

Mr. Moriarity said this was the case. For example, 
the Division regularly treated letters of intent from 
granting agencies as receipts of funds and reported grant 
revenues as deductions to previously incurred expenses . 
This led to a commingling of funds that was extremely 
difficult to sort out. Mr. Hogan said he was very much 
concerned about this, as the only authorized accounting for 
grants was through the campus Controller's Office. Further, 
there were well established Trustee guidelines governing 
grant procedures through the respective campus offices of 
grant and contract administration and the campus controller's 
office. He asked if it was the case that the grants in 
question had not been recorded in the Amherst Controller's 
Office. Mr. Moriarity said it was mainly a problem of 
timing. At times in the Division there were delays of up to 
18 months between receipt of the award letter and receipt of 
the funds. Mr. Hogan asked if the award letter had been 
recorded in the University accounting system. Mr. Moriarity 
said this was usually the case; however, even in this regard 
there had been delays in updating the accounting system. 
The Division was not reporting activities on a timely 
basis. On being told that the Division had been spending 
money from the Continuing Education Trust Fund for grant 
activities, Mr. Hogan said that the Division had absolutely 
no authority to do this. 



I 



I 



I 



-8- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Kaludis said this issue raised a more general 
one. With but few exceptions the audit reports did not 
attempt to relate the accounting practices of the operations 
under audit to the accounting practices of the University. 
Mr. McDermott said this was a point well taken and one which 
had caused the auditors much difficulty. Areas such as the 
Controller's Office were not in the scope of any of the work 
Peat, Marwick had done on the Amherst Campus. The only time 
the auditors did any work in the Controller's Office was 
when such work was necessary to form an opinion. Mr. 
Kaludis said that this indicated a gross fault in writing 
the audit specifications. If there were faults in the 
linkages between the operations and the campus business 
offices, the administration should be made aware. If each 
division were to be treated as a separate corporation, then 
the only solution to accounting problems would be to 
strengthen the accounting capability of each division. This 
solution was unacceptable. 

Mr. McDermott said he would not recommend such a 
solution. In those instances where it appeared this was 
being recommended, it was a recommendation for a short-term 
solution to ensure control over the particular division's 
practices. The whole matter was in the end a problem of 
centralization vs. decentralization and this was a policy 
that the University would have to make. Mr. McDermott said 
that nothing in the reports or in his comments should be 
seen as an endorsement of either policy. Mr. McBee said 
that Mr. McDermott had made this clear in discussing the 
issue earlier. 

Trustee Crain said that this matter was part of 
a broader issue and that was the need to have accurate 
records and controls when dealing with large sums of money 8 
It was his impression that at the University, unlike the 
private sector, when there was evidence that certain funds 
were not under strict control, there was no sense of need to 
take immediate action. Trustee Crain said it was his 
opinion that whenever there was a lack of control over 
funds, this should be corrected at once. Further, this 
should be done even if it meant that reallocations of funds 
would have to be made. 

Turning to the audit of the Residence Halls, 
Mr. McDermott said that there were a few issues which would 
have to be addressed at the Board level with the advice of 
counsel. These had to do with the unexpended bond proceeds, 
reserve fund income, and the Housing and Urban Development 
subsidy funds, all held by the Building Authority. Mr. 
Kaludis said that while these were matters with which the 
Board should be aware, they were not necessarily matters 
that were under the control of the Board. 

-9- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. McDermott then noted that Peat, Marwick 
had recently completed a study of the electronic data 
processing aspects of the Student Financial Aid opera' ion. 
The draft report of the study, now in the hands of management , 
revealed a number of significant items. For example, 
program change controls were extremely weak and it was 
possible that unauthorized people could gain access to the 
program and create false accounts. Also, these false 
accounts would be untraceable. Physical security of the Data 
Processing Center itself caused serious concern. There was 
the possibility of access by unauthorized persons and there 
was the possibility of destruction of records by fire. 
Finally, the problem of the level of documentation for both 
programs and systems would have to be addressed by management 
in the near future. Mr. McDermott concluded by noting that 
the final report would be addressed to the Committee on 
Audits. 



I 



Mr. Kaludis said there was some confusion in the 
matter. While there was no problem with the Committee's 
having the report, before the study had been commissioned 
this matter had been considered by the Committee and it had 
been agreed that management should decide whether or not the 
study should be made. The study was not an audit as defined 
in the Committee protocols; it was an internal control study 
and the Request for Proposal and contract made this clear. 



■ 



Chairman Dennis said it should be noted that the 
auditors had a professional responsibility to report their 
findings to the Board. Mr. Kaludis said he had no problem 
with this; his point was that the Committee had left this 
matter to management's discretion. Chairman Dennis said it 
was his recollection that this had been done because at the 
time the matter was being discussed, it was felt that this 
was not an issue that the Committee should address. Mr. 
Hester noted that no transactions had been audited and that 
no financial statements had been prepared; the study was not 
an audit, but a consulting engagement. 



Chairman Dennis said he was not trying to negate 
what had been agreed upon. However, the auditors should at 
least discuss with management what information should be 
conveyed to the Board. Mr. Kaludis said that his position 
was that the auditors could tell the Board whatever they 
wished. However, the final report of the Student Financial 
Aid Study had yet to appear; therefore it would be inappro- 
priate for the consultants to report to the Committee on the 
study. 

Trustee Crain said this discussion led to the 
issue of attitudes towards audits. He said he did not see 
audits as devices to catch anyone or bases for recrimination. 
Audits provided input which would allow significant improvement 



I 



-10- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



in management. Given this, Peat, Marwick would have been 
negligent iT they had not reported to the Committee something 
they had discovered as a result of an audit. Trustee Crain 
said the conditions described by Mr. McDermott appeared to 
be such that they required immediate attention. Mr. Kaludis 
said the conditions had received attention. Another auditing 
firm had been engaged last winter to do a study on selected 
data processing issues and had alerted the University to the 
same problems. For example, the concerns about the physical 
security of the Data Processing Center had been addressed 
and certain unacceptable conditions had been eliminated. 
When critical problems were identified, the staff did act 
immediately. 

Chairman Dennis said the real problem was that of 
Board access to information. As had been stated before, 
audits were the responsibility of the Board and auditors 
were expected to have the normal professional relationship 
with the Board that they needed to have in order to properly 
discharge their duties. This did not preclude action by 
management; however, the Board should receive reports. 



Mr. Hester asked leave to try to clarify the 
situation regarding the Student Financial Aid study. While 
the University had received a first draft report, Peat, 
Marwick, under the provisions of the contract, owed the 
University a second draft after campus-level field confer- 
ences • Thus management could not be seen as withholding 
anything. The second draft, when received, would be the 
subject of an exit conference at the University level. In 
effect, the University had in hand an outdated draft and by 
the time the second draft was received, actions would have 
been taken which would render it out of date. Given the 
limited time remaining in this meeting, Mr. Hester said he 
did not feel it worthwhile to concentrate on this single 
issue. Trustee Crain agreed; however, his reason for 
concentrating on the matter was a perception that some felt 
it was improper for the matter to be raised before the 
Committee. He said he wished to clarify his position on 
this. The auditors had been asked to make the Committee 
aware of significant issues, and felt they were responding 
correctly to instructions. 

Mr. McDermott then said that the items which had 
been discussed were the significant matters that the FY 1977 
audits of the Amherst auxiliary enterprises had disclosed. 
Mr. Hester asked leave to discuss several items in the 
audits. The first had to do with the term "University 
officials'* in the audits, a more correct term would be 
"campus officials" since no member of the Central Adminis- 
tration had been involved in any issue on any audit. 

-11- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Hester then asked for clarification of the 
statement in the management letter concerning the Division 
of Continuing Education which recommended that the Trustees 
consider placing the Division on a fiscal ysar running from 
August 1 to July 31. Earlier, Peat, Marwick had recommended 
that certain divisions in the Campus Center operate on a May 
1 to April 30 fiscal year. He asked the auditors for their 
opinion as to the advisability of the University's having 
multiple fiscal years and what effect this would have on the 
issuance of the University's financial statements. 



I 



Mr. Moriarity said the recommendation regarding 
Continuing Education was made because it would allow the 
Division to conclude its fiscal year at the end of the 
summer session; thus, providing a more logical break in the 
transaction process and would eliminate a number of serious 
accounting problems. Mr. Kaludis asked if this meant that 
the Division would close its books on June 30 for purposes 
of the University financial statement and then close the 
books again on July 31 for the purposes of its own statement 
Mr. Moriarity said this was so. 



Mr. Hester noted that in the audits there had 
been references to problems with cash controls. He asked 
the auditors to comment in general terms on this matter. 
Mr. Moriarity said that there were problems in many of the 
individual trust fund operations in that the individuals 
involved were not oriented to standard accounting practices. 
Also, certain areas were lax in regard to establishing 
control of funds at time of receipt. The recommendations 
were designed to improve controls of funds at time of 
receipt. There was no evidence that there had been any 
serious misuse of funds; however, it was felt that controls 
should be in place to preclude any misuse in the future. 

Mr. Hester asked if the auditors felt that the 
University was at substantial risk in terms of fraud or 
embezzlement in the areas which had been audited. He noted 
that in the attachments to the Health Services audit there 
were two statements that indicated instances where there was 
evidence that cash had been received but there was no 
documentation of receipt. Mr. McDermott said that there was 
no evidence of fraud, as the monies in question had been 
deposited. The problem was that there was a lack of audit 
trails from receipt of cash to the deposit thereof. Mr. 
McBee said that controls had since been instituted which 
would ensure that such events would not recur. Also, both 
his office and the Treasurer had recently issued new cash 
handling procedures. 

Mr. Hester then spoke of the treatment of renewal 
and replacement reserves in the audits and noted that 



■ 



■ 



-12- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

apparently in the Health Services audit such reserves were 
treated as a separate fund yet were not treated as a fund in 
the Campus Center. He isked the auditors to comment on this 
and also to comment on the general matter of the meaning of 
renewal and replacement reserves in the University environ- 
ment. In the audit, it was noted that the Campus Center was 
building toward a $500,000 reserve. In other words, Mr. 
Hester asked, did Peat, Marwick have an opinion as to the 
amount of the reserve and as to its rate of growth? 

Mr. horiarity, speaking to the question of why 
such reserves were treated differently in the Health Services 
audit than in that for the Campus Center, said this raised 
the rather complex question of what constituted a restricted 
fund. In the case of the Campus Center the term served as a 
designation function rather than a restricted one. The 
establishment of a replacement /renewal fund had been built 
into the original financial projections on which the Project 
11 bond issue was based. Mr. Kaludis asked if the term 
"Project 11" translated into the Campus Center Trust Fund in 
the auditor's lexicon. Mr. Moriarity said the two were 
closely related entities if not exactly the same thing. 

The intention then was, Mr. Moriarity continued, 
that there be a renewal /replacement fund set up. However, 
there was never any provision made to set aside and legally 
restrict the use of those monies . It was simply a device to 
set aside some available resources for purposes of renewal 
and replacement. Mr. Kaludis asked how such funds could be 
legally restricted rather than simply designated. Mr. 
Moriarity said the normal course would be to seek Board 
approval . 



i 



Mr. Kaludis asked if an unrestricted fund could be 
turned into a restricted fund by Board action. Mr. McDermott 
said this was not the case; an unrestricted fund could only 
be changed into a designated fund by Board action. He 
then cautioned that the meeting was in danger of being 
caught up in semantics. Mr. Hester said the problem was not 
one of semantics, but one of AICPA guidelines for College 
and University accounting practices. 

Referring to the audit of the University Health 
Services, Mr. Hester asked if there had been Board approval 
to categorize their replacement/ renewal monies as a fund. 
Mr. McDermott said that these monies were neither a desig- 
nated fund nor a restricted fund. In the matter of the 
Campus Center, it could be argued that the fund was a truly 
restricted fund in that mention of it was made in the bond 
prospectus for the project. This constituted the real 
difference between the funds: the Campus Center fund had 
been represented to the public in the prospectus and it had 
been managed internally as a designated fund. 



-13- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Hester said he was now even more confused by 
the treatment of the fund. The fund was not so shown on the 
balance sheet or on the statement of changes in fund balances 
It was not segregated and the auditors appeared to be saying 
that it was required to be segregated. In the case of the 
University Health Services, where the auditors had said that 
the status of the fund was purely a campus designation, the 
fund was segregated on the balance sheet. Mr. McDermott 
said his point was that the Campus Center fund was more 
nearly a truly restricted fund in that as had been stated, 
it had been so represented to the public. He noted that he 
had used the terminology used by the campus administration. 
Mr. Hog an said his problem was with the use of the term 
"funded reserve." The Campus Center, given its present 
financial state, could not afford such a reserve. 



I 



Mr. Kaludis said that one of the major questions 
that had arisen from the audits was how much of the work 
done by the auditors was accounting rather than auditing. 
For example, did the auditors draw the financial statements? 
Mr. McDermott said that the auditors had performed certain 
accounting functions and that the amount of accounting 
varied considerably from entity to entity. For example, 
when the Conference Services were transferred from the 
Division of Continuing Education to the Campus Center, there 
was a period when there was little or no accounting done. 
The auditors had helped the Campus Center staff reconstruct 
the records into the format of a financial statement. 



■ 



Mr. Hester said there was one last issue which 
should be discussed. The issue related to the use of the 
term "Campus Center Trust Fund," specifically when the term 
was used to indicate that the University had such a trust 
fund which accounted for all Campus Center transactions. 
Mr. Hester said he was concerned since no such trust fund 
existed. It was important to realize that what was being 
audited was neither a legal nor an accounting entity. 

It was also important that the Campus Center not 
be equated with Project 11. For example, Project 11 had no 
call on the assets of the University store. Thus, the 
combined assets shown on the financial statements were not 
available to reduce the debt on Project 11 and might be 
misread. Mr. Kaludis said that the point was that the 
statement could lead one to believe that Project 11 was in 
excellent financial shape. This was not the case. 



-14- 



■ 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Pill, referring to the Conference Services, 
asked if the matter of the $15,000 shortage was being 
pursued. Chairman Dennis said that it was. The same was 
true of the laundry missing from the Campus Center. 

There then ensued a brief discussion of the aid 
that the students could give in matters related to the 
financial affairs of the University. The discussion con- 
cluded with the Trustees' welcoming such aid. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m. 




Dorothy Eiche" 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



I 



-15- 






UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



■ 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF 
TRUSTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

July 10, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Chancellor's Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Boston 



i Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey; President 
Patterson; Mr. Knapp, President-elect; Trustees Dennis, Marks, 
Robertson and Troy; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent: Trustees Burack, Crain, Shearer and 



Spiller 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs 

UM/Boston : Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 



UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger 



The meeting came to order at 2:15 p.m. Chairman 
Healey said the reason for calling the meeting was a possible 
need to find a Chancellor for Amherst; and, as was known, Chancel- 
lor Bulger had submitted his resignation. President-elect Knapp 
had expressed his concern that the University might find itself 
in the position of seeking three Chancellors simultaneously. 



Because finding a Chancellor for the Medical Center was 
;a matter of some urgency, Chairman Healey continued, and as the 
(Board did not meet until August, the Executive Committee was being 
asked to consider starting the search process. While the Committeje 
was empowered to act, it usually made recommendations to the Board). 
Since all Trustees had been informed of the meeting and the intent 
thereof, it was felt that action would be accepted. 

Mr. Knapp said that his concern with the possible 
multiple search situation stemmed from the enormity of the task. 
In the event that the University became involved in three simul- 
taneous searches, it would be best if one individual served as the 
senior staff person to all three. There were several ways to 
approach this problem. The Trustees might wish to consider hiring 
an executive search consultant or using the services of a Manage- 
ment employment agency. Such an agency had been used, and used 
effectively, by Brown, Colgate and Cornell in their recent presi- 
dential searches. Another possibility would be to find an elder 
statesman of higher education who knew what the role of the Chan- 
cellor entailed and who had knowledge of possible candidates. The 
consultant's function, Mr. Knapp continued, would be to serve as 
staff to the search committees, to help each committee define the 



Search Process 
for Chancellor 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the position and the search process and to expedite the applica- 
tion process. 

Another matter that needed to be addressed was the role 
composition and size of the search committees. Each committee 
should be seen as an advisory body to the Board and the President 
and not as a deciding body. As such bodies, their tasks would 
include making recommendations pertaining to the definition of the 
position and what type of person was being sought, and performing 
the initial screening. While there might be hundreds of applica- 
tions, only a handful of these would merit serious consideration. 
Speaking of the size of the committees, Mr. Knapp said he had re- 
cently chaired four decanal search committees ranging from as few 
as six members to as many as sixteen and could say with certainty j 
that the larger the body the less effective it would be. However j 
the committees should be broadly representative of the interested 
constituents — roughly four faculty, one student, one campus adminis 
trator, one member from the Central Administration and one or two 
Trustees. Also the matter of the role of the alumni in the search 
process should be addressed. 



Mr. Knapp noted that the search process at times called 
for as much effort in persuading people to take a job as was ex- 
pended in screening individuals. It probably was the case that the 
search committees would have to convince some people of the at- 
tractions of academic administration before they would apply. 

Mr. Knapp stressed that it was important to see the 
search process as a means of building an executive team. The 
President, the Vice Presidents, and the Chancellors would have to 
work together very closely as a team on behalf of the University, 
rather than each going separate ways. Trustee involvement in the 
final screening of the applicants was of equal importance, so that 
the President's recommendation and the Board's decision would be in 
concert. Mr. Knapp concluded by noting that medical school deans 
were difficult to find, and if the University wished to have a re- 
placement for Chancellor Bulger, things would have to move quickly 

Trustee Marks suggested having a single committee for 
the three searches. If there were three separate committees, some 
of the constituents would be forced to repeat actions and motions 
particularly in the case of Amherst and Boston. Chancellor Bulger 
said that he would worry if a single committee were to be estab- 
lished. It would eliminate the possibility of having a relatively 
small and workable committee. Of greater importance was the need 
to ensure that each campus felt it was involved in and had influ- 
ence on the selection of the Chancellor. Given a single committee 
wherein each campus's faculty delegation would be one third of the 
total faculty delegation, this would be difficult to do. 

Professor Martin said that while he could see the merits 
in a single committee, it would be all but impossible for such a 



P 



-2- 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

committee to separate and focus on the quite different issues 
which faced Boston and Amherst. Single committees, even though 
they might lead to redundancies and duplication of effort, were 
essential. Trustee Dennis said it was likely that there would be 
many applicants for the posts at Amherst and Boston and that there 
would be instances where the same name appeared on the list for 
each campus. Some method should be found to deal with this prob- 
lem. Chairman Healey said that if there were separate committees, 
they could have joint meetings to resolve such problems. 



Chairman Healey said there seemed to be a consensus thajt 
there should be a separate committee for each campus and that the 
committees should be served by a single staff. Trustee Troy 
agreed, saying that he felt separate committees were necessary. 
Boston's problems differed from those of Amherst, and Worcester 
represented a special case. Trustee Marks said he would accept 
separate committees and that the idea of a single staff was a 
good one. 

The Committee then agreed to discuss the establishment 
of a Chancellor's search committee for the Medical Center. Chair 
man Healey said the first subs.tantive issue to be considered was 
Chancellor Bulger's recommendation, and the President elect's 
concurrence therewith, that the search process be conducted with 
the understanding that, in addition to the Chancellor, the Medical 
School would have a Dean. Presumably the Dean would be appointed 
after the appointment of the new Chancellor. 



Chancellor Bulger said there were several Medical 
Center matters which should be understood. The first was that 
the impending search process would engender an application list 
much different from that of the last Chancellor's search. 
Coincident with, but not necessarily because of, his tenure, the 
Medical Center was much more secure as an institution; a number of 
areas of ambiguities had been removed and the direction in which 
the Center would develop was now much clearer. A number of people 
would be attracted to an institution which was at once scienti- 
fically oriented and community based. Many people were becoming 
aware that the next three or four years at Worcester were going to 
be very exciting. However, if there were to be a long interregnum 
in the Chancellorship, some of the lustre of this happy prospect 
would wear off. 

Medical schools, Chancellor Bulger continued, differed 
from other academic enterprises in that the most important people 
were the chairmen of the academic departments. In addition, they 
were the Chiefs of Service in the Teaching Hospital. Thus in both 
the School and the Hospital they were very much the leaders. As 
leaders they needed day-by-day access to the higher reaches of 
administration. At Worcester, in the absence of a Dean, this 
meant that the Chancellor spent so much time on internal matters 
that it was all but impossible to perform any external functions 



-3- 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

adequately. For these reasons it would help the chancellor re- 
cruitment process if candidates could be told that the Board was 
willing to have a senior academic officer, whether that be a Dean 
or a Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. It was important tha 
this expectation be made explicit even if the new Chancellor wou 
decide not to fill the additional post. 



I 



;< 



What was needed, Chancellor Bulger continued, was some- 
one to deal with the day-to-day budget, personnel, space, and 
miscellaneous wants and problems of twenty-five chairmen, the 
students, and others at the Medical Center. Attempts had been 
made to recruit someone at the level of an Associate Dean or 
Senior Associate Dean, but these met with no success. This was 
just as well, as someone was needed who, as deputy to the Chancel- 
lor, had enough stature to deal with the chairmen. The Chancellor 
concluded by noting that there was the possibility that applica- 
tions could come from individuals already on the staff. 

Chairman Healey asked if there would be a difference 
between the duties of a dean and those of a Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs. Chancellor Bulger said that there could be, 
and that this was a matter which should be left open for discus- 
sion with the new Chancellor. If, as was likely, the Medical 
Center evolved into an academic health sciences center, then the 
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs would oversee all academic 
efforts, including any developments in the allied health profes- 
sions. At present the Dean would be responsible only for the 
Medical School. If the Board approved the position and if an 
ideal candidate was found, the proper solution to the title/duties 
quandary might be to hire the person as Vice Chancellor for Aca- 
demic Affairs and Deputy Dean of the Medical School. Mr. Lynton 
said he wished to underscore the need for the position until such 
time as the new Chancellor had considered the matter, particularly 
since the extent of allied health developments at Worcester would 
be much more clear in the late fall. 

Chairman Healey asked the Trustees if they agreed with 
the need for a senior academic officer in addition to the Chancel- 
lor. They indicated that they did. He then asked if they would 
be willing to deal with the matter of the make-up of the search 
committee for Worcester. 

Trustee Troy asked leave to speak to a matter that had 
been mentioned earlier — Chancellor Bulger's assertion that the 
University should act quickly in finding a new Chancellor. He 
said he had served on a number of search committees. Very often 
these committees would fall into a routine and a sense of having 
a great deal of time before action was necessary. Trustee Troy 
asked if in this instance the search could be completed rapidly. 
President Patterson said it was his judgement that this could be 



I 



-4- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

done. Search committees did take too much time. Parkinson's Law 
seemed operative in all cases — work did expand so as to fill the 
time available for its completion. Furthermore, they were in- 
variably too expensive. 

President Patterson said it was his opinion that it 
would be very responsible of the Board to move very quickly in 
getting the Worcester search started. After talking with Chancel- 
lor Bulger he was convinced that, it would be perfectly possible 
to have a new Chancellor at the time Chancellor Bulger was leaving. 
This would enable the University to break out of the cycle of ap- 
pointing acting executives, in which it now seemed to be caught. 
Trustee Troy said this would be an encouraging development. It 
was his belief that this should be done as rapidly as possible. 

Chairman Healey asked the Chancellor if he thought this 
was possible. Chancellor Bulger said he could supply immediately 
the names of twenty qualified individuals. Not all would neces- 
sarily be applicants, but the world of academic medicine was a 
small one in comparison with that of the University and the identi- 
fication of potential candidates was a simple task. If it were 
possible to advertise the position and to empower someone to write 
about 300 letters even before the search committee was established 
the process could begin immediately. The letters would solicit 
names and applications and could include a deadline of September 
15. In his opinion it would be possible for the Board to make a 
choice by November 1. 

Chancellor Bulger said he had been remiss in not fully 
representing the Medical Center beyond the confines of the Common- 
wealth. This he intended to remedy in the immediate future and 
it was his belief that this would contribute to the quick develop- 
ment of a list of really outstanding candidates. Mr. Knapp said 
there had been a half dozen similar searches in recent months. 
The University could doubtless tap the lists developed by these 
searches very readily. 

Chairman Healey said it was becoming apparent that the 
Committee would have a recommended procedure to present to the 
Board at the August meeting. He felt that letters would be more 
effective than ads in mid-summer and he would be happy to sign 
however many letters were necessary on behalf of the Board. The 
letters could state that replies were to be sent to the Office of 
the Secretary and would be referred to a search committee which 
would be established in early August. Trustee Dennis said that 
affirmative action procedures made it necessary that the ads pre- 
cede the letters. President Patterson said it would seem appro- 
priate to draft the ad and then the letters. Chairman Healey 
agreed that this was the proper sequence. 

Mr. Lynton said that another time consuming exercise was 
the nomination and appointment of faculty /student representatives. 
He suggested that this process could be expedited if Worcester 
were asked to supply nominees in time for action at the August 
Board meeting. 

-5- 



Exec 
7/10/78 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Marks said that the experience gained in past 
searches had been useful; for example, the Alumni Association should 
simply be incorporated into the search structure. Secondly, there 
was a certain amount of feeling at the Board level that the selec- 
tion of the senior staff person for the presidential search had 
been made with undue haste. He suggested that staff in the Presi- 
dent's Office draft for the Trustees a memo indicating the kind of 
search committee that would be useful, and include in the memo 
mention of the need for a senior staff position. This would give 
the Board time for consideration as well as giving the adminis- 
tration time to contact the faculty, alumni and others and ask for 
recommendations of individuals. This would be preferable to the 
Committee's deciding immediately on the make-up of the search 
committee. Once the Trustees were informed and allowed to comment, 
the process could begin. 

Trustee. Troy said that it was his opinion that what was 
being suggested in no way violated the provisions of the Governance 
Document. Chairman Healey asked if any of the suggestions would 
be in conflict with the proposed collective bargaining agreement. 
Mr. Lynton said they were not. Also, the key requirement in the 
Governance Document was that the appropriate constituencies nomi- 
nate those who were to represent them. 



Chairman Healey said there seemed to be a general con- 
sensus as to the way in which to proceed. Mr. Knapp agreed. The 
sooner the process could begin the better. President Patterson 
asked Trustee Marks if his thought was that the proposed memoran- 
dum would allow not only reaction to the process but would also 
invite recommendations with regard to membership. Trustee Marks 
said he did not see membership as a particular problem. 

Chairman Healey said the only real sense of urgency in 
all this was to at least begin the process at Worcester. If 
agreeable, an ad could be drafted and steps taken to ensure that 
all the requirements for affirmative action were met. Also, it 
seemed to make sense to send letters to early prospects and in- 
clude with each letter a copy of the ad and to send the memorandum 
to the Trustees for their reaction. 



Chairman Healey said that it was his understanding that 
the final approval of the make-up of the search committee would 
be left to the Board at the August meeting. Trustee Marks said 
that his suggestion was that the memorandum include the structure 
of the search committee staff as well as the seats on the committeje, 
that is, X number of faculty, Y Trustees, etc. This would put thej 
Board on notice that the process was proceeding rapidly and in whajt 
way. The next. step would be to nominate campus members to the 
committee through the normal governance procedures and by the use 
of impressment at the Trustee level. In effect the Executive Com- 
mittee would be describing to the Board the structure of the three 



I 



I 



■6- 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

search committees and the structure of the staff, and asking if 
the Trustees had comments or suggestions. 

Chairman Healey suggested that the Executive Committee 
concentrate on the Medical Center since it was a matter of urgency 
and let the full Board address the matter of any other needed 
searches. He said he wanted to ensure that every Trustee was 
given the opportunity to be heard. Harking back to the earlier 
discussion on the leisurely pace at which the search process some- 
times operated, Mr. Knapp suggested that a deadline be established 
for the completion of the Worcester search, possibly as early as 
November 1. 

Trustee Robertson said he too felt that the Worcester 
search was a matter of urgency and that he favored the process 
just outlined. If the process began as described, many things 
would happen very quickly. It was his opinion that the naming of 
the members of the search committee could wait until the Board 
meeting, but the appointment of staff could not. Almost immedi- 
ately there would be a need for someone to collect, collate and 
acknowledge applications and nominations and so forth. He asked 
how the staff was to be assembled. Chancellor Bulger said that 
Dr. Karl Hittleman, who had served as Secretary and de facto 
manager of the last Chancellor's search committee at Worcester, 
was still on the faculty. He had recently withdrawn from clini- 
cal work in order to devote more time to administrative matters 
and might be available. President Patterson and Mr. Lynton said 
that Dr. Hittleman had done a superb job in the last go around. 

Trustee Troy said that his experience with the presi- 
dential search committee led him to the conclusion that the staffs 
however large it needed to be, should be phased in. There were 
periods of intense activity followed by periods where the cleri- 
cal staff had nothing to do. At the outset there should be a 
senior staff person and a secretary, supported by additional stafl 
as needed. President Patterson agreed. He said the Central Ad- 
ministration could handle the immediate tasks mentioned by 
Trustee Robertson in the three week period before the Board meet- 
ing. Also, Donna Milley, who had served as clerical secretary to 
the presidential search committee, was available. The Board 
would vote on a senior person at the August meeting with the 
knowledge that the process had begun. 

Trustee Dennis said he was concerned as to the source 
of the funds for the search. In the presidential search, funds 
and/or services had been drawn from the three campuses and the 
Central Administration. Also, the cost of the presidential search 
had been in excess of the original budget. He suggested that the 
chancellor's search budget be more closely defined. 

Chairman Healey said his main concern was that although 
the Executive Committee did have the authority to act , there was 



-7- 



Exec . 
7/10/78 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the need for a general consensus of the Board as a whole as the 
process went forward. Trustee Robertson said the key to this was 
to keep the Trustees informed at all times. 

Trustee Dennis, referring to the several statements as 
to the urgent need at Worcester, asked why there was not the same 
sense of urgency about the situation at Boston, where there was 
an acting Chancellor. Chairman Healey said that part of the 
reason was that if everyone adopted the attitude that there were 
five or six months in which to decide, then the Worcester campus 
might well end up with an acting Chancellor. He said he hoped 
that the August meeting of the Board could discuss the situation 
at Boston and, if necessary, at Amherst. Mr. Knapp said that 
another factor was that the Boston Chancellor would have to be 
selected in the context of what direction the Board wished to see 
the campus going. In a sense, there was jelling yet to take place 
at Boston. Professor Martin said that it should be noted that 
there was tremendous support on campus for Chancellor Van Ummerser 
She was doing a marvelous job and the faculty was not in any rush 
to see her leave. 

Chairman Healey, returning to the matter of the 
Worcester search, asked if a motion would be in order. President 
Patterson said that there seemed to be four areas of agreement — 
that there should be a separate committee for the Worcester 
search; that there was seen to be a need for a second major posi- 
tion in academic affairs at Worcester with a title and duties yet 
to be defined; that an ad for the position should be published, 
that letters seeking applications and nominations should be sent 
as soon as possible, and that a memorandum should be sent to the 
Trustees indicating the composition of the search committee in 
terms of representation and slots and establishing a deadline for 
committee action. 

Chairman Healey said it would be helpful to define the 
slots. Trustee Marks said there were opposing needs here — one was 
that the search committee had to be broadly representative; the 
other, that it not be so large as to be cumbersome. President 
Patterson said that if he understood the earlier discussion, the 
committee would consist of two Trustees, four faculty, one alumni 
representative, one student, one campus administrator, one repre- 
sentative from the central administration and one community repre- 
sentative — a total of eleven. Chairman Healey asked if there were 
any objections to this. There were none. Trustee Robertson said 
that he would be happy to serve as one of the Trustee represent- 
atives. Chairman Healey accepted. 

Chairman Healey then asked if the concept, previously 
mentioned, of the search committee's being advisory to the Board 
and the President was acceptable. After a brief discussion it 
was agreed that the proper role of the committee was to decide 



-8- 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

which were the most likely candidates and then to recommend no 
less than three nor more than five of these candidates to the 
President and the Board. Chairman Healey concluded the discussion 
by noting that the Board would be informed of the Executive Com- 
mittee's actions regarding the composition of the search Committee 
and , if there were no objections by the Trustees, the process 
would go forward. The formal charge of the search committee 
could be established at the August meeting of the Board. 

The Committee then discussed Gulf Oil Property Purchase 
President Patterson reminded the Trustees that the University had 
faced the possibility of losing the land near the Columbia MTA 
station which was used as a turnaround for the shuttle bus. The 
Gulf Oil Corporation, owners of the land, had declined to renew 
the lease, as they wished to sell the land. University officials 
had been negotiating with Gulf in order to purchase part of the 
land. The 80,000 square feet that the University wished to buy 
had an appraised value of $200,000. Gulf Oil had agreed to this 
price after negotiation. 



A capital outlay grant of $300,000 had been received, 
President Patterson continued, and this would enable the Univer- 
sity to purchase the land and to make needed improvements. The 
Executive Committee was being asked to act now, as there were 
time constraints involved. Chairman Healey said that he had asked 
that the members of the Committee on Buildings and Grounds be 
polled as to their reaction to this proposal . All had agreed that 
the land should be purchased. 

Trustee Troy asked if the often-mentioned change in the 
route of the Quincy train so that it would make a stop at the 
Columbia station would have any effect on the property. President 
Patterson said it would affect the property to some extent but not 
in any way that would make the purchase unwise. In any case, re- 
cent conversations with MBTA officials had indicated that it 
would be a long time before the change would be made. There was 
no further discussion, and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President of the University 
to offer the Gulf Oil Corporation an amount 
not to exceed $200,000 for the purchase of 
approximately 80,000 square feet of real 
property at the northerly end of the Gulf- 
owned land at 33 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston 
(Dorchester) Massachusetts, said property to 
include that parcel leased by Gulf to the 
University on January 23, 1974, and the 
metes and bounds of said property to be 
determined by a survey to be commissioned by 
the University. 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



Gulf Oil 
Property 
Purchase 



-9- 



Exec. 
7/10/78 



Delegation 
of Authority 
to Appoint 
Certifying 
Officer 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Further, to authorize and empower the Acting 
Treasurer, upon acceptance by Gulf of said 
offer to execute all agreements necessary 
for the University to acquire said property 
and to execute, any and all instruments neces- 
sary to consummate the purchase of said prop- 
erty in the name of the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts for the use of the Trustees of the 
University of Massachusetts, said agreements 
and instruments to be approved as to form by 
the General Counsel; provided that the payment 
for such purchase shall be made from capital 
outlay appropriations available for the pur- 
pose. 

The Committee then discussed the Appointment of Certi- 
fying Officer. President Patterson said that at present the Uni- 



P 



versity in the absence of the Secretary and the Assistant Secre- 
tary was without a certifying officer and further was without a 
clear policy as to how to remedy this deficiency. The proposed 
vote was intended to clear this matter up. The Committee was 
being asked to act since the University at present was without a 
Secretary and the Assistant Secretary was on vacation. There was 
no discussion, and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President to appoint a 
Certifying Officer in the absence of the 
Secretary and the Assistant Secretary. 

The Committee then heard brief reports on the status of 
pending litigation and the FY 1979 budget. It then adjourned at 
3:30 p.m. 



I 




UcAjUL 



Dorothy Ei/fcfrel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



1 



-10- 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

August 2, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Administration Building 
Room 308 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President Patter- 
son; Mr. Knapp, President-elect; Trustee Popko; Mr. Parks repre- 
senting Trustee Dukakis; Mr, Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Breyer, Burack and Morgenthau 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Management 



UM/Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost: Mr. Jones, Dean, School of Engineering; Professor Fried- 
man, Faculty Representative 

UM/ Bos ton : Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost: Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger: Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 
Health Affairs; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 11:05 a.m. The first item 
of business was Exemption of Dr. Ernest Washington from Require- 
ment of Immediate Return from Sabbatical Leave — UM/Amherst (Doc. 
T78-102). Chairman Troy said that this proposal raised a broader 
and troubling issue. University policy in this regard was clear 
and long standing—individuals granted sabbaticals were required 
to return to the University for at least one year immediately on 
return from sabbatical. Yet over the years exceptions had been 
granted. This raised a question as to the worth of having a pol- 
icy which was never enforced. He asked if individuals signed an 
agreement to return prior to going on sabbatical; he asked, also, 
if the individuals understand the requirement. President Patter- 
son said that a faculty member seeking a sabbatical submitted a 
written proposal; included in the proposal was a section wherein 
the faculty member attested to an intention to either return to 
the University or repay all salary received while on sabbatical. 

Chairman Troy asked what recourse was open to the Uni- 
versity in case a faculty member refused to accede to either re- 
quirement. Mr. Lynton said the individual could be taken to 
court. In particularly blatant cases a letter could be written 
to the chief executive of the institution which the individual 
was joining, pointing out what had happened. This had been done, 
for example, when a faculty member gave notice after May 1 of in- 
tent not to return. 



UM/Amherst — 
Exemption of 
Dr. Ernest 
Washington from 
Requirement of 
Immediate Returr 
from Sabbatical 
Leave 
(Doc. T78-102) 



F & EP 
8/2/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Appointment of 
Professor Harry 
Allan as Dean 
and Professor 
with Tenure in 
the School of 
Business Admin- 
istration 
(Doc. T78-103) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Knapp asked how frequently exceptions were granted. 
Mr. Lynton said that since he had been at the University two ex- 
ceptions had been granted. Chairman Troy said that this whole 
matter put the University in a difficult position. If there 
were no requirements, a sabbatical could be seen as a kind of 
terminal leave with pay. On the other hand, if an individual 
wanted to leave the University and was required to return, his/ 
her morale would probably be very low. 

Returning to the case of Professor Washington, Mr. 
Lynton said there was no request to waive the obligation to re- 
turn. He was asking that he not be required to return immedi- 
ately and that he be granted a year's leave without pay, at the 
conclusion of which he would return to the University. Chairman } 
Troy said it was his understanding that the work Professor Wash- 
ington would be doing while on leave would be a continuation of 
that he had been doing while on sabbatical. Mr. Allen said that 
this was the case and that he supported the proposal. 



I 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees waive for 

one year the requirement that Professor Ernest Wash- 
ington return to the University on completion of his 
sabbatical leave on August 31, 1978. Further, to 
grant Professor Washington leave of absence without 
pay for the period of September 1, 1978, to August 
31, 1979, it being understood that Professor Wash- 
ington will return to the University on September 1, 
1979, or will return all salary paid to him while on 
sabbatical as stated in Doc. T78-102. 

The Committee then discussed the Appointment of Profes- 
sor Harry Allan as Dean and Professor with Tenure in the School 
of Business Administration — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-103) . Mr. Allen 
said that the search for the Dean had begun prior to his appoint- 
ment as Provost. Over 100 applicants had been screened and at 
the end of the search process there were eight finalists, includ 
ing two internal candidates. The search committee had voted 
overwhelmingly for Professor Allan, whose many distinctions in- 
cluded having once been a tenured faculty member at UM/Amherst. 
Professor Allan, he said, is now Provost at Northeastern Univer- 
sity and had been the Dean of the School of Management at Syra- 
cuse. He is an excellent scholar and teacher. Mr. Allen said 
he had known Professor Allan when he was at Amherst. During that 
period there were times of turmoil and Professor Allan had proved 
to be a very valuable University citizen in dealing with crises. 
The University was fortunate to be able to obtain his services. 

Pfesident Patterson seconded Mr. Allen's remarks. He 
noted that Professor Allan had been a candidate during a previous 
search for the Dean of Business Administration. 



-2- 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board concur with the Presi- 
dent in the appointment by the Chancellor of Harry 
T. Allan as Dean of the School of Business Adminis- 
tration at the University of Massachusetts at Am- 
herst as set forth in Doc. T78-103. 



and further 



VOTED 





F & EP 
8/2/78 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur in 
the appointment by the President of Harry T. Allan 
as Professor of Business Administration with tenure 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst as 
set forth in Doc. T78-103. 



The Committee then heard a report from Dr. Caper on 
Medical Center Proposal for an Area Health Education Center Pro- 
gram and for an Exchange Program with China . [Dr. Caper's re- 
marks to the Committee were substantially the same as those he 
made to the Board at its August 2, 1978, meeting and are to be 
found in the minutes of that meeting. ] 

At the conclusion of Dr. Caper's remarks Chairman Troy 
called for a motion to enter executive session in order to dis- 
cuss awards of tenure. Accordingly, at 11:45 a.m. it was moved, 
seconded and on roll call 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

Chairman Troy, President Patterson, Trustee Popko and 
Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis voted for the motion. 
Trustees Breyer, Burack and Morgenthau were absent. 

At 12:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 

It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur in 
the President's award of tenure to those faculty 
members named in Doc. T78-089, Supplement III, ef- 
fective September, 1978. 

There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m. 



Proposals for 
AHEC and Ex- 
change Program 
with China 



Executive 
Session 



Dorothy Eich&l 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



-3- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



> 



NOT USED 



f 



1 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF 
TRUSTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

August 2, 1978; 1:30 p.m. 

Chancellor's Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Pat- 
terson; Mr. Knapp, President-elect; Trustees Burack, Crain, 
Dennis, Robertson, Shearer and Troy; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, 
recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Marks and Spiller 

Other Trustees : Trustees Dion, Krumsiek, 0' Sullivan, Popko and 
Sawtelle; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks 
representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Sear- 
son, General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost; Professor Friedman, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Professor Martin, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 
Health Affairs; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 1:45 p.m. The first item 
of business was Concurrence in Appointment of Michael 0. Bice as 
Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance — UM/Worcester 
(Doc. T78-105). Chancellor Bulger said that when the Teaching 
Hospital first opened there was, understandably, a great deal of 
turmoil. At that time there was discussion and eventual agree- 
ment that the Medical Center needed a Vice Chancellor for Admin- 
istration and Finance to take care of extra-hospital administra- 
tive matters. Soon after the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, 
the then Hospital Director resigned. While seeking a new Direc- 
tor, discussions were held with other medical centers around the 
country. From these discussions it became apparent that in medi- 
cal centers where the teaching hospital was wholly owned by the 
center, the normal pattern was to have one person direct the 
business and administrative affairs of the whole operation, in- 
cluding the hospital. When this occurred, the administrative of- 
ficer had to have a good deal of experience in directing a hos- 
pital. 

Mr. Bice, Chancellor Bulger continued, in his one year 
as Hospital Director, had had a sensational effect. Because of 



UM/Worcester — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Michael 0. Bice 
as Vice Chan- 
cellor for Ad- 
ministration 
and Finance 
(Doc. T78-105) 



Exec. 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

his competence, he had been assigned further duties over the 
past six months. He had established credibility with the aca- 
demic community in the Medical School and was not seen as some- 
one whose only interest was in running the Hospital. 

In a sense, Chancellor Bulger said, things had come 
full circle. If the Trustees approved the appointment of Mr. 
Bice as Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance in addi- 
tion to his duties as Hospital Director, then the business and 
administrative affairs of the campus as a whole would be in the 
hands of an extremely able and proven individual in whom all had 
great confidence. 

Trustee Crain, speaking as Chairman of the Committee 
on Budget and Finance, said it was his strong feeling that the 
proposed salary should be considered by that Committee. While 
not in any way reflecting on Mr. Bice or his professional compe- 
tence, the salary proposed was 37 percent over the state maximum 
and should be examined very carefully. Trustee Burack said she 
felt approval of overscale salaries was a very bad practice and 
she would be opposed to it in this case as in others. Trustee 
Robertson said he would like to discuss the salary more fully at 
an appropriate time. Chairman Healey asked if there were any 
objections to referring the matter of salary to the Budget and 
Finance Committee. There were none, and it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees refer the 
Personnel Action set forth in Doc. T78-106 to the 
Committee on Budget and Finance. 

Trustee Burack asked if this would have any effect on 
Chancellor Bulger's desire to have Mr. Bice installed as Vice 
Chancellor on September 1. Chancellor Bulger said he did not 
understand the legal niceties of this matter; however, if there 
was concern over the salary, he was sure that Mr. Bice would 
want the issue discussed thoroughly. From his point of view and 
that of the campus, and if it were possible, it would be best to 
go ahead with the appointment and to leave the matter of salary 
in abeyance until the Budget and Finance Committee had considerec 
it. 

Chairman Healey asked if there was any objection to the 
appointment of Mr. Bice to the combined posts of Vice Chancellor 
and Hospital Director, with the realization that the salary woulc 
be somewhere between $43,449 and $48,449. Trustee Crain said 
that he could not speak to the matter until it had been studied. 
Chairman Healey said that what he was suggesting was that Mr. 
Bice's salary might remain at its present level or it might be 
increased but it would not be reduced. Trustee Crain said this 
was acceptable. 



-2- 



f 



I 



f 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Parks asked for clarification. He recalled the 
discussion of the need for two positions and was not sure of the 
justification for combining the two. Chancellor Bulger said that 
the original concept had been that the Hospital Director would be 
concerned only with the Hospital; the Vice Chancellor for Admin- 
istration and Finance would be responsible for personnel, fiscal 
affairs, bio-medical computing and all aspects of the physical 
plant for the entire operation, including the Hospital. In a 
sense the Hospital Director would be a purchaser of the services 
offered by the Vice Chancellor. 

In combining the two positions the Medical Center was 
saying that all common functions would now report to one indi- 
vidual. In practice, the Hospital Director was the majority user 
of the common services. Experience had shown that Mr. Bice could 
manage the Hospital very effectively as well as effectively man- 
aging certain campus-wide functions. It was believed that Mr. 
Bice could manage the entire operation and manage it very well 
without adding new people. When the need for the two positions 
had been discussed, there were great uncertainties about the 
management of both the Hospital and the Medical School. The 
situation in both areas had improved greatly. Mr. Kaludis said 
he supported the proposed organizational change. There was a 
tendency in medical centers to duplicate administrative staffs 
for the hospital and for the other elements of the center. The 
proposal being discussed was an integrative one and would prevent 
costly duplication. 

Chairman Healey asked if this was a change which would 
be recommended regardless of the presence or absence of Mr. Bice. 
Chancellor Bulger said that it was. 

Trustee Burack urged that the Committee first vote on 
the merger of the two positions and then vote on the appointment 
of Mr. Bice. This was agreed to and it was then moved, seconded 
and 



VOTED : 



To recommend that the Board merge the positions of 
Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance and 
Hospital Director at the University of Massachusetts 
at Worcester. 



and further 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur with 
the President in the appointment by the Chancellor 
of Michael 0. Bice as Vice Chancellor for Administra- 
tion and Finance and Hospital Director at the Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts at Worcester, as detailed 
in Doc. T78-105. 



-3- 






Exec. 
8/2/78 



Exec. 
8/2/78 

Personnel 

Action 

(Doc. T78-109) 



UM/ Worcester — 
Hospital Rate 
Increase 
(Doc. T78-104) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said the next Personnel Action had to 
do with the impending change in President Patterson's status. He 
would leave the Presidency on August 31 and return to the Boston 
Campus as Frank L. Boyden Professor with tenure, which professor- 
ship he retained while President. His salary would change from 
$49,365, on an annual basis, to $41,117. At Boston President 
Patterson would teach, conduct research and represent the Univer- 
sity in programs with the John F. Kennedy Library. 

Chairman Healey said that he wished to express to Presi 
dent Patterson the eternal gratitude of the Board for stepping 
into a very difficult position at a very difficult time and see- 
ing to it that the University continued to go forward. In so do- 
ing, he preserved not only the University but also its reputa- 
tion. The Chairman said he hoped that the Trustees would express 
their appreciation to President Patterson in a more practical way 
after the September Board meeting. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
Personnel Action as set forth in Doc. T78-109. 

The Committee then discussed Hospital Rate Increase . 
Chancellor Bulger said that this was part of an attempt to pro- 
ject the Hospital to full capacity and to bring charges more 
closely in line with true costs. This was to be done in such a 
way as to ensure that the state's educational subsidy to the 
Hospital would remain at or below 10 percent of the total operat- 
ing budget. 

Chancellor Bulger said that the average state subsidy 
to hospitals comparable to the UM/Worcester teaching hospital in 
composition and organization ranged from 20 to 25 percent of the 
operating budget. It was Worcester's intent to keep its subsidy 
to half of that. As the patient base at the Hospital developed, 
the charges and operating costs had to begin to converge. 

The proposal before the Committee, Chancellor Bulger 
continued, included some rate decreases — for example, the 
charges for intensive care beds — and increased certain ancillary 
charges bringing them more in line with those charged at compara- 
ble hospitals in the Boston area. Chancellor Bulger said that 
the economic forces now focussed on hospitals were such that the 
proposed rate increases could be seen as being very modest ones. 

Trustee Burack asked if it was sound and valid to com- 
pare the costs of the Teaching Hospital with those of the Massa- 
chusetts General Hospital. Chancellor Bulger said that the 
mission of the Teaching Hospital was to be a specialty hospital. 
The Comprehensive Health Planning Group, noting that Worcester 
had a sufficiency of community hospital beds, had asked the 



-4- 



I 



■ 



■ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Teaching Hospital to bring to the area high technology, intensive 
care facilities and services. Thus the Teaching Hospital was a 
labor/ technology intensive operation such as MGH and other major 
teaching hospitals in Boston and the cost comparisons were valid. 

Mr. Parks asked if the proposals were in line with the 
current position of the Rate Setting Commission. Chancellor 
Bulger said it was his belief that the request was a very con- 
servative one and that the Commission would see it as justified. 
In response to Mr. Parks' further questions, Chancellor Bulger 
said that the Hospital now had 161 open beds, that the occupancy 
rate for July was over 85 percent and that the rate increase re- 
quests reflected the occupancy rates. Mr. Parks, noting that he 
frequently participated in discussions on the need to keep health 
care costs down, said he was troubled that the University was 
asking for an increase, given this concern. Trustee Crain said 
that it might add some perspective to the Teaching Hospital re- 
quest to know that one of his responsibilities in industry was to 
conduct negotiations with insurers. He said his recent experi- 
ences enabled him to state with conviction that the requested in- 
creases were very modest. 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts 
at Worcester to seek an increase in hospital rates 
for the Teaching Hospital effective August 2, 1978. 
The weighted average of the rate increases shall 
not exceed 11.8 percent, such increases to be as 
generally outlined in Doc. T78-104. Further, to 
request the Rate Setting Commission for Health In- 
stitutions to approve said increases. 

Mr. Parks abstained from voting. 

The Committee then discussed Salary Adjustments and 
Merit Increases for Professional Staff Not Represented by an Em- 



ployee Organization . President Patterson said the proposed vote 
was intended to provide the administration with some flexibility 
to act, and was necessary and desirable in view of information 
received from the State Office of Employee Relations. Mr. Kaludis 
said that one of the offshoots of the collective bargaining pro- 
cess was a discussion of nonunion professional staff. The Uni- 
versity had been notified, subject to the availability of funds, 
that it would be possible to make some compensation changes for 
such employees. What was requested was an enabling vote so that 
the President could act when and if funds became available. 
There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the President, subject to available funds, to 



-5- 



Exec . 
8/2/78 



Salary Adjust- 
ments and Merit 
Increases for 
Professional 
Staff Not Rep- 
resented by an 
Employee Organ- 
ization 



Exec. 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

implement salary adjustments and merit increases 
pursuant to guidelines established by the State 
Office of Employee Relations for professional 
staff members not represented by an employee or- 
ganization certified by the Labor Relations Com- 
mission. 



I 



There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 




Dorothy Eicfoel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



" 



I 



-6- 



ATTENDANCE: 






UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 



September 6, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 

Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 

Central Administrative Offices 

University of Massachusetts 

250 Stuart Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain, President Knapp ; 
Trustees Dennis, Krumsiek, Marks; Mr. Colby representing Trustee 
Winthrop; Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer and Dion 

Central Administration : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; 
Mr. Gilmore, Executive Assistant to the President; Mr. Stine, 
Assistant Vice President 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Acting Vice Chancello:- 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice 
Chancellor for Administration and Finance and Director, OBIS; 
Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs-designate; Mr. 
DeNyse, Personnel; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Representative; 
Professor Kline, Secretary, Faculty Senate 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Mr. Fenstemacher , Director, 
Institutional Planning and Budgeting; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Professor Hunt, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Fellner, Assistant Controller 
Mr. Turek, Budget Director 

Guests : Ms. Pinck and Ms. Jones, Executive Office of Educational 
Affairs 

Chairman Crain called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m 
He expressed appreciation for the early submission of the budget 
materials, especially in light of the staffing changes that had 
taken place in the budget office during the summer. He then 
asked Mr. Hester to introduce the matter of budgets. Mr. Hester 
said that although the University had done better this year than 
it had in the past several years, the funding level was still not 
up to that requested and needed in order to operate the Univer- 
sity properly. He then introduced Mr. Stine, who had recently 
joined the staff of the Vice President for Management, asking him 
to comment on the fee-based budgets. 



B & F 
9/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. Stine said that in April the Board of Trustees had 
voted to authorize new trust funds and new fees, and in May, to 
approve fee increases. These fees were later incorporated into 
the Fee-Based Budgets (Doc. T78-087, T78-111 and T78-112) which 
the committee was now being asked to approve. He noted that in 
May, the Board had discussed the establishment of a trust fund for 
Student Services at the Medical Center; however, the trust fund 
and fee had not been established at that time due to an oversight 
The fee proposed is $15. He suggested that the Committee deal with 
this oversight before voting on the fee-based budget for UM/ 
Worcester. Also, he noted that the Child Care Center budget for 
UM/Worcester , contained in the documentation originally submitted 
at the time authorization was requested for the Center, had not 
been approved and the budget needed to be included in the fee- 
based budget document. The budget was available should the Commit 
tee wish to review it. The trust fund and the fee schedule for 
the Center had been approved by the Board. It was the sense of 
the meeting that the Trust Fund and fee should be approved. 

Mr. Stine asked Mr. Beatty to comment. Mr. Beatty calle 
attention to the fact that since the UM/Amherst fee-based budget 
document had been prepared, the Legislature had exempted the 
University from the meals tax. The students had been notified, 
and the amount for this tax could now be deducted from the budget. 

Chancellor Bromery then introduced Mr. Dennis Madson, 
UM/Amherst Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs-designate. Chair- 
man Crain welcomed Mr. Madson. He then acknowledged with thanks 
and appreciation Mr. Woodbury's work during his tenure as acting 
Vice Chancellor. Chairman Crain informed the Committee that he 
and President Knapp had discussed the prioritizing of those 
activities currently funded by trust funds for which state funds 
would be sought. 



Without further discussion, on motion made and seconded, 



it was 



UM/Amherst — 
FY 1979 
Revenue-based 
Budget 
(Doc. T78-087) 

UM/Boston — 
FY 1979 Fee- 
based Budget 
(Doc. T78-111) 



UM/Worcester — 
FY 1979 Fee- 
based Budget 
(Doc. T78-112A) 



VOTED: 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the FY 1979 Revenue-based Budget, University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst (Doc. T78-087) . 



and also 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the FY 1979 Fee-based Budget, University of 
Massachusetts at Boston (Doc. T78-111) . 



and further 



VOTED: 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the FY 1979 Fee-based Budget, University of 
Massachusetts at Worcester (Doc. T78-112A) . 



-2- 



I 



I 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain next asked for discussion of the FY 1979 
Operating Budget (Doc. T78-100) . 



Mr. Stine said this budget in- 
cluded all budgets of the University and all income from all 
sources, state and nonstate. The income, he said came from the 
state maintenance appropriation, state specials, federal grants, 
auxiliary enterprises, fee-based budgets, research trust funds, 
trust fund interest, and the University Hospital. The only figure 
not included was the state salary reserve, which was still un- 
determined because of failure to settle collective bargaining. 
Eventually this too would be included. The budget for the Hospitajl 
represented a major increase — from $17.7 million to $31.7 million. 
The state funded portion of the University budget to date, he said, 
was about $118.5 million. The total budget from all sources 
amounted to about $235.5 million. 

Mr. Stine then reviewed the process by which the budget 
was developed. The FY 1979 budget, he said, included money for 
the filling of many of the vacant faculty and support positions; 
37 new positions were included for the Medical School, and 
reallocations of some positions were included at both UM/Amherst 
and UM/Boston. A special reserve had been allotted by the state 
for library acquisitions. A separate appropriation of three 
million dollars in capital outlay funds for UM/Amherst had been 
set up by the Legislature for deferred maintenance to upgrade 
buildings on that campus. Approximately $500,000 would also be 
directly allocated from the Bureau of Building Construction funds 
for special University problems, such as dike repair at UM/Boston. 
Major efforts were being made to undertake the correction of 
management problems cited in the audit reports, some in Common 
Services and some in auxiliary enterprises. Plans, he said, were 
being made to handle the labor relations contract, which President 
Knapp would speak about later in the meeting. He said comparison 
of the FY 1979 and FY 1980 budgets was complicated by a 53rd 
week payroll in FY 1979. He noted that the cost of utilities 
and maintenance for the Central Administrative Offices at 250 
Stuart Street could not be known until there was actual data on 
utilities, cleaning costs, etc., but that it was possible that it 
would approximate the cost of rental space at One Washington Mall. 
Substantial trust fund interest, he said, would be necessary to 
supplement state funding of the central offices. 



Trustee Dennis said that it was his understanding that 
the costs of the Central Administration at 250 Stuart Street would 
be paid from state funds. Mr. Hester said that such was the case. 
The rent on One Washington Mall, he said, had also been paid from 
state funds until the Legislature last year prohibited this practic 
The trust fund interest account, he said, would not be used for 
building maintenance and utility costs, but to cover an overall 
shortfall in state funds for the Central Administration. 

Trustee Marks commented that it had been the hope of 
the Trustees that some savings would result from the moving of the 
entral Administration to 250 Stuart Street, as well as a modest 
amount of savings from state support of some of the activities 



-3- 



B & F 
9/6/78 

FY 1979 
Operating 
Budget 
(Doc. T78-100) 



B & F 
9/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

currently funded from Trust Fund Interest. However, it seemed 
the first might be a wash item, and the success of the second 
was still undetermined. Chairman Crain said that he had asked foi 
the comparison in costs between the rented space at One Washingtor 
Mall and the new central office space, and asked that these costs 
be monitored and reported to the Trustees. 

President Knapp said that in the FY 1980 budget the 
University was seeking greater support from the state for the 
central office in order to allow for more flexibility in the use 
of Trust Fund Interest. 

Trustee Krumsiek said he would like to see where the 
estimates in the cost of space at 250 Stuart Street were wrong 
since it appeared they had been too low. Chairman Crain asked 
for reconciliations of both the original estimates and the 
currently anticipated expenses with the actual costs as they 
became available. 

Trustee Dennis asked where the costs of audits appeared 
in the budget. He was informed that each unit bore the cost of 
its own audit. 

Trustee Dennis stated concern about the projected modest 
increase in enrollments for 1979, since the 1978 enrollments had 
dropped below those of 1977. Chancellor Bromery replied that at 
UM/ Amherst this was the result of having maintained enrollments 
in 1975 despite budget cuts. The campus was now simply trying to 
catch up in support services. Mr. Beatty added that in some 
fields the enrollment demand was greater than the University 
could support. If support could be provided, the campus could 
actually increase enrollments in these areas. Chancellor Van 
Ummersen said circumstances were different on the Boston campus. 
Termination of federal Veterans programs as well as lack of 
financial aid had reduced enrollments in the second semester 
of FY 1978. However, enrollments had recently been on the in- 
crease and the campus expected to meet its enrollment goals this 
fall. Also, she said, applicants for the College of Professional 
Studies had to be turned away because of lack of resources. 
Replying to a question by Chairman Crain, Chancellor Van Ummersen 
said that additional support services and greater effort by the 
admissions office would both have a positive influence on enroll- 
ments at UM/Boston. 

President Knapp said that the FY 1980 budget also 
addressed the issue of enrollments, counseling and reallocation 
of positions at UM/Boston. The long-range planning activities 
of the Trustees, he said, would be very important in this area. 

Mrs. Pinck stated her surprise to learn that the Boston 
campus had not been able to meet its financial aid needs in the 
last semester of FY 1978, since, she said, in earlier discussiors 
with regard to tuition waivers, she had been informed that the 
University was able to meet all its financial aid requirements. 



■4- 



[ 



I 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

She asked if it would be possible for the campus to supply to the 
Executive Office of Educational Affairs a summary indicating the 
degree to which the Boston campus had been unable to meet these 
needs in the last semester. This information would be useful to 
her office, she said, not only in their attempt to meet the needs 
of the campus, but also in studying the whole financial aid pic- 
ture in the Commonwealth. 

Professor Fletcher said that at UM/Amherst students 
were being lost because they could not get into programs of their 
choice. He said in some areas the advising ratio was 60:1, and 
other areas had teaching ratios of 30:1. He agreed with Mr. 
Beatty that if the support services were available, enrollments 
could actually increase in some areas. Without the support serv- 
ices, enrollments would drop. It was a Catch 22 situation, said 
Chairman Crain, because if enrollments dropped, the Legislature 
would provide less money. President Knapp asked to what degree 
the problem could be alleviated by reallocation of resources. 
Chancellor Bromery said that reallocations were being made, but 
there was also a need to maintain the proper balance between the 
Arts and Sciences and the professional schools in order to func- 
tion as a University should. 

Chairman Crain emphasized that the Committee on Budget 
and Finance, in addition to its critical review of the budget 
figures, was willing to aid in any way that it could in the de- 
velopment of strategies that would attract the kind of clientele 
thought to be beneficial to the University. He said the Commit- 
tees on Long-Range Planning and Faculty and Educational Policy 
would be working on solutions to these problems and the Committee 
| on Budget and Finance would be happy to be of assistance. 

Trustee Dennis asked how the trust fund allocations to 
the various units of the University for FY 1979 compared with 
those of FY 1978. He was informed that there were no changes. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen explained that the housing allowance for 
the Chancellor was being used for faculty awards , teaching and 
research, professional staff development, etc., areas where here- 
tofore no funds had been available. Chairman Crain asked for a 
breakdown of these allocations. Trustee Krumsiek suggested that, 
to avoid duplication, the housing allowance funds not be used for 
faculty salary awards. These would be provided for, he said, in 
the collective bargaining agreement. 

President Knapp commented on the Central Office budget, 
noting that it called heavily on trust funds for staff salaries. 
This, he said, was partly due to lack of state funding and partly 
due to the transitional period. The FY 1980 budget, he said, 
would ask for full staffing. He said he would like to make a 
change in organization so that personnel matters could be more 
easily coordinated. The management of collective bargaining was 
as important, he said, as the negotiating process. Mr. Lynton 



-5- 



B & F 
9/6/78 



B & F 
9/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

noted that soon after the current negotiations were concluded, it 
would be necessary to begin negotiations for next year's contract 

Professor Fletcher commented that he hoped when the 
Trustees were comparing figures from one year to another, they 
would also take note of the percentage increases, which ranged, 
he said, from 6 percent in some areas to 153 percent in others. 
Trustee Krumsiek and Chairman Crain both indicated that the 
Trustees could not be expected to do such in depth research, but 
must rely on the administration to highlight these matters. The 
Trustees were concerned more with whether positions were really 
needed and whether reallocations were appropriate. 

President Knapp said that priorities had to be set. 
Administrative costs had grown more rapidly than academic costs, 
partly because of the demands for accountability and affirmative 
action requiring greater data processing capability, and partly 
because of contract negotiations. Utility and maintenance costs 
had also increased disproportionately. 

Chancellor Bromery commented that many of the addi- 
tional administrative costs were actually, if not directly, bene- 
fitting both faculty and students by providing additional support 
services . 

Trustee Dennis asked for a review of the programs of 
the Institute for Governmental Services in view of the change in 
staffing from temporary to permanent positions. It was noted 
that some of these positions had been added to handle the Title 
XX project, which had now been terminated, and it now seemed pru- 
dent to review the current programs of the Institute. 

Chairman Crain said that he hoped that the resources 
necessary to correct deficiencies exposed by the recent audits 
had been provided so that future audits would not uncover similar 
problems . 

Chairman Crain asked for information with regard to the 
Survey Research Program, which had a budget of approximately 
$750,000 and specifically whether overhead costs were included in 
this budget. Chancellor Van Ummersen replied that the University 
bore the entire cost of overhead expenses. Chairman Crain asked 
if there were other programs of this nature. Mr. Beatty said 
that there were no major programs at UM/Amherst, but a few small 
programs established some time ago did exist, such as one run in 
conjunction with the Department of Food and Agriculture. Mr. 
Hester explained that the Survey Research Program was in essence 
an outreach program, providing service to the state and community 
Ms. Pinck asked how this program differed from the Institute for 
Governmental Services and the Institute for Learning and Teaching 
both of which received overhead costs from funding sources. Mr. 
Lynton explained that federal grants allowed a certain percentage 



-6- 



I 



I 



l 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

for overhead costs. State funded projects did not always do so. 
Mr. Hester said that there was an ongoing dialogue between the 
University and the State Comptroller's office with regard to the 
issues of overhead costs on state projects, but no resolution 
had been reached. 

The Survey Research Center had begun as a joint venture 
I by Harvard and MIT, and UM/Boston had joined in the venture four 
or five years ago. 

President Knapp said that the IGS , the ILT and the Sur- 
vey Research Center were all programs which served the needs of 
the state in social and political areas, in much the same way as 
the agricultural extension programs served in another area. This 
was a matter, he said, of the appropriate relationship between 
the University and the state and this whole area was one which 
should be studied. 

Chairman Crain asked that a review of the genesis of 
the Survey Research Center and the matter of overhead be put on 
the agenda for a meeting later in the fall. Also, as an ongoing 
project, he asked for a recap of deferred maintenance, including 
the scope and best estimate of a program which would solve this 
problem. He said the Trustees might be able to help in resolving 
some of these matters. President Knapp said that this was a two- 
fold problem: one issue was the need for capital outlay to cor- 
rect the major deficiencies that had accumulated over the years; 
the other was to ensure that present and future maintenance bud- 
gets were adequate to cover regular maintenance costs on a yearly 
basis. Chancellor Bromery suggested that maintenance problems 
were also brought about by some of the practices of the Bureau of ; 
Building Construction. Another factor in maintenance was the role 
played by the University Building Authority. Trustee Marks, as a 
recently appointed Trustee member of the Building Authority, sug- 
gested that it might be possible for the Authority to use some of 
its excess reserves for maintenance of buildings now that build- 
ing construction has ceased. 

Mr. Beatty noted that the substantial amounts shown on 
the Vice Chancellors' operations in the Amherst budget had now 
been allocated to the various departments in the units. Mr. 
Hester called attention to a computer error on page W-13 . The 
Medical School would not be contributing to Common Services, and 
the $3.8 million figure should in fact be zero. All Common Serv- 
ices costs for Worcester were being paid from the Hospital. Mr. 
Beatty said that the Amherst campus would be transferring some 
positions from the 03 to the 02 account, now that the positions 
had been authorized. 



B & F 
9/6/78 



Chairman Crain called for the vote and on motion made 
and seconded, it was 



-7- 



B & F 
9/6/78 



FY80 Mainte- 
nance Budget 
Request 
(Doc. T78-101) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
FY 1979 Operating Budget for the University of Mas- 
sachusetts as contained in Doc. T78-100. 

Chairman Crain introduced next the FY 1980 Maint enance 
Budget Request (Doc. T78-101) . At the Chairman's request Mr. 
Hester explained that in the FY 1980 request formerly trust-funde 
items had been transferred as far as possible to state funds. 
For instance, it was now possible to pay insurance costs from 
state funds. Also, the FY 1980 budget included funds for collec- 
tive bargaining settlements, which was a change in practice. In 
past years this item had been def initionally excluded, with the 
University drawing upon a central pool of funds appropriated by 
the Legislature. 

President Knapp added that about half the increase in 
the FY 1980 budget was due to anticipated salary increases. In- 
flationary costs, such as utilities, accounted for more of the 
increase, as did library acquisition costs, program increases, 
student financial aid and academic support services such as 
teaching equipment and supplies. Some of these costs were the 
result of former lack of resources and were "catch-up" costs. 
The FY 1980 request, he said, was a maintenance budget in the 
true sense of the word. 

Mr. Stine said that the process of budget development 
this year had been somewhat different from that of past years. 
The request for FY 1980 represented an increase of approximately 
18 percent, or $22.2 million, over the FY 1979 operating budget. 

Trustee Dennis said that, again, he was concerned by 
the increasing costs for a static enrollment. It was noted that 
inflation made it cost more to stand still, that the tapping of 
new clienteles would also increase costs, and that collective 
bargaining settlements reached by the Commonwealth, which ac- 
counted for a large portion of the increase, were not the result 
of University decisions. Also the amount included in the collec- 
tive bargaining figure covered increases for three years — the 
past year, the present year and the upcoming year. Chairman 
Crain asked that the documentation to support this increase be 
preserved for the benefit of new legislators, who might not be 
aware of the fact that three years were covered by this figure. 
Trustee Krumsiek stressed the importance of the University's be- 
ing aware of what other public institutions are doing with regard 
to nonunionized personnel. 

Trustee Dennis asked that creative ways be found to 
keep costs down while at the same time obtaining better results. 
President Knapp said that in order to do this, resources would 
have to be shifted, which would cause much human hardship. Never 
theless, he said, it was necessary to do this in order to obtain 
public support. Chancellor Bromery commented that during the 
lean years, academic support services were most affected — 



-8- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

telephones were removed and inventories depleted. It was now 
necessary to reinstate some of these services. President Knapp 
agreed that working conditions as well as salaries played a part 
in whether faculty stayed or left. There was no further discus- 
sion and on motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
FY 1980 Maintenance Budget Request as set forth in 
Doc. T78-101. 

At the request of the Chairman, Treasurer Brand ex- 
plained the next agenda item, Ohio Land — Sewer Easement (Doc. 
T78-113) . He said that the City of Columbus had offered to pay 
the University for a portion of land currently owned by the Uni- 
versity for a sewer easement. The sewer easement would enhance 
the value of the land, making it more salable, and therefore, was 
to the advantage of the University. There was no discussion and 
on motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED: To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the Acting Treasurer, Robert H. Brand, to execute 
on its behalf a deed of easement to the City of 
Columbus, Ohio as more particularly described and 
set forth in Trustee Document T78-113 and to accept 
the City's offer of $600.00 as compensation for said 
easement as set forth in its letter of August 1, 
1978, attached to said Trustee Document; further, to 
authorize the Acting Treasurer to take such other 
action and to execute such other documents as may be 
necessary to effectuate the granting of this ease- 
ment and to ensure receipt of said compensation. 

Chairman Crain asked Mr. Hester to report on the status 
of the Group Practice Loan. Mr. Hester said that the money lent 
to the Group Practice by the Amherst campus in order to pay start 
■ up costs had now been fully repaid to the campus by the Group 
Practice Plan. 

Chancellor Bromery informed the Committee he had ap- 
pointed Mr. Beatty acting Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance in addition to his duties as budget director. 

Chairman Crain again thanked the staff for the timely 
arrival of the budget materials. There being no further business 
the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m. 




Dorothy Eicljiel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



-9- 



B & F 
9/6/78 



Ohio Land — 
Sewer Easement 
(Doc. T78-113) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 

STUDENT AFFAIRS 



September 13, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Shearer; President Knapp; 
Trustee Kassler; Ms. Owens, representing Trustee Okin; Treasurer 
Brand; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Anrig, Dion and T Sullivan 

Other Trustees : Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Ms. Simmons, Associate Vice President for Academic Af- 
fairs 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery 

UM/Boston : Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Feinblatt, Director of Student Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 10:52 a.m. by Chair- 
man Shearer. The first item discussed was Rules and Regulations 
for the Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes (Doc. T74-- 
073A) . At the request of the Chairman, Ms. Simmons reviewed 
briefly the current policy. Ms. Simmons said that this matter had 
been discussed at the August Board meeting, and as a result of 
that discussion, it was now being reviewed by the Committee on 
Student Affairs. She said the current policy specifies the legal 
age of majority as eighteen, it defines residency as living in 
the state for one continuous calendar year next preceding the dates 
of application, and establishes those conditions which determine 
domicile. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld both the residency 
and the domicile requirements. Appeals from students as to their 
status for tuition purposes are heard by the Treasurer on a case- 
by-case basis. 

The Legislature has recently increased the residency re- 
quirement to eighteen months, and it is now necessary to revise 
the University policy to comply with the new statute. It seemed 
appropriate at this time for the President to establish a sub- 
committee to study the rules and regulations to see if further 
clarification is required and whether further changes are neces- 
sary. It is anticipated that this subcommittee will be ready 



Rules and 
Regulations 
for the Classi- 
fication of 
Students for 
Tuition Pur- 
poses 
(Doc. T74- 
073A) 



Student 
Affairs 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to report by January 1, 1979. 

Treasurer Brand then informed the Trustees of the number 
of appeals received by the University. This year there have been 
over 250 appeals to date. About 72 percent of the appeals are re- 
solved in favor of the student. The University does not challenge 
the information included by the student on the appeal form since 

it is sworn to in the presence of a notary public. The rules set 
forth by the U.S. Supreme Court for domicile are not very explicit 
Among the conditions considered for determining domicile are owner 
ship of property, voting or automobile registration, employment, 
tax returns, etc. Domicile and residency are often misinterpreted 
to mean the same thing and must be more exactly defined for stu- 
dents. There is also a need to clarify the cutoff date for con- 
sideration of residency status since for different campuses and 
programs the dates may differ. 



Ms. Pinck said that the Executive Office of Educational 
Affairs was interested in the issue of what constitutes domicile. 
All segments of higher education, she said, were interpreting 
domicile to mean citizenship or permanent residence. The Executive 
Office, she said, was dealing with the matter of stateless persons 
and refugees, some 4,000 to 5,000, less than half of whom would be 
likely to apply for admission to institutions of higher education, 1 
but the question of status remained for those who did. These 
people are eligible for federal financial aid, but not for state 
aid or scholarships. Discussion ensued as to whether persons with- 
out permanent visas could be considered domiciled in this country. 
It was suggested that since they are subject to recall by their 
countries or to deportation by the United States, they could not 
be considered to be domiciled in the state, domicile implying the 
intent to remain permanently. Ms. Pinck said she hoped this 
question would be answered explicitly in the revised policy. She 
said the Executive Office was considering the filing of legislatiojn 
to waive the residency requirement for stateless persons and refu-j 
gees. Mr. Brand said that he saw such a waiver as a potential 
problem. He said that presently only individuals with permanent 
residence visas were considered as domiciled in the United States. 

Trustee Kassler stated his belief that the rules and 
regulations should be uniform across the state and suggested that 
this might be something for the Board of Higher Education to con- 
sider. Mr. Lynton said that since the University probably had the 
largest number of foreign students in the state and would, there- 
fore, be most seriously affected by any proposed regulations, it 
might be wise, at least as a first step, to share its experience 
with BHE and to work with them to determine ways in which this 
problem could best be approached. Mr. Brand said that at the time 
the original policy was established, he had served on the BHE sub- 
committee which had developed it, and at that time the policy had 
been ratified by the Presidents of the state and community colleges . 



I 



I 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

There being no further time available, Chairman 
Shearer terminated discussion on this subject. 

Chairman Shearer called next for discussion of the mat- ] 
ter of Concurrence in the Appointment of the Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs — UM/ Amherst (Doc. T78-115). At the request of the 
Chairman, President Knapp opened the discussion. He said this 
recommendation had been made before he became President. However,! 
Mr. Madson had been the choice of both the Search Committee and 
the Chancellor. Chancellor Bromery stated that the Vice Chancel- 
lorship at UM/ Amherst was one of the top administrative positions 
for student affairs in the country. There were, he said, usually 
two types of administrators in the student affairs area — those who 
were management oriented and those who were student oriented. The 
position at UM/Amherst required someone with experience in both 
fields, as the campus had one of the five largest residence hall 
complexes in the country. Mr. Madson had had experience in man- 
aging a large residential complex such as that at UM/Amherst. 



President Knapp said he believed that management of resi 
dence halls was a matter of growing importance, while the counsel- 
ing aspect of the position might eventually move to other units of 
the campus . 

Trustee Kassler asked how the salary compared with that 
of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at UM/Boston. He was 
informed that the salary for the position at UM/Amherst was higher 
than that for the position at UM/Boston and was over the state 
salary scale, but was within the Trustee-approved range for the 
position classification and was below the salary of the former Vice 
Chancellor. Ms. Pinck asked if the professorship being offered to 
Mr. Madson was also a matter for action by the Committee on Student 
Affairs. Mr. Lynton replied that the professorship would be dis- 
cussed at the meeting of the Executive Committee. 

Chairman Shearer asked what the result would be if the 
Board did not concur in the appointment of the Vice Chancellor. 
Chancellor Bromery replied that Mr. Madson was aware that his ap- 
pointment was contingent upon the concurrence of the Board. 
Trustee Kassler asked if it was the usual procedure to bring a 
person to the campus before the Board had concurred in the appoint- 
ment. President Knapp said that normal procedure was, of course, 
to obtain concurrence before the fait accompli, but on the other 
hand there should be faith between the Trustees and the adminis- 
tration. Trustee Kassler said he thought it was a matter of policy 
as to whether the Board wished to accept overscale appointments, 
and he said the Board had objected to such appointments on several 
occasions in the recent past. Overscale salaries were a matter 
for the Board to determine, he said, and he questioned the authority 
of the Chancellor to offer the position at a salary not within the 
state salary scale. Mr. Lynton said that there were two things to 



Student 
Affairs 
9/13/78 



■3- 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence 
in Appointment 
of Vice Chancel- 
lor of Student 
Affairs 
(Doc. T78-115) 



Student 

Affairs 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

consider — one, the fact that although the salary was over the 
state scale, it was within the range approved by the Board for the 
position, and the other, that the position itself was at a level 
which required Board concurrence in the appointment. 

President Knapp said he had written a letter to the Execu} 
tive Committee indicating that he would like to undertake a study 
of executive compensation. He felt that there should be a good 
understanding as to where the University stood in the competitive 
market, especially since the University is currently seeking candi 
dates for several senior positions. He said he thought there was 
need for some freedom at the upper levels. He also indicated that 
he did not feel it was always appropriate for a senior adminis- 
trator to hold a faculty position. The two positions, he said, 
did not always mesh. He said he felt it would be better to have 
a policy in this matter rather than to deal with each appointment 
on a case-to-case basis. 

Trustee Kassler said his concern was that the salary was 
above the state salary scale and no determination had been made 
as to how it would fit into the University salary schedule. Mr. 
Lynton said he could understand why Trustees would feel that this 
tfas an ex post facto discussion, but assured Trustee Kassler that 
internally the salary had received serious consideration regarding 
its consistency within the University pattern and in relation to 
salaries for comparable positions at other institutions. Chancel- 
lor Bromery said that he had conferred with President Patterson 
before making the job offer. Trustee Kassler suggested that at 
Least a telephone call to members of the Executive Committee would 
lave been appropriate before the letter offering the position to 
4r. Madson had been written. 



I 



v 



Chairman Shearer said that as a matter of interest she 
ould like to know how many women had applied for the position and 
Whether minorities had been considered. Chancellor Bromery said 
he was uncertain as to the number who applied but that a minority 
lad been among the top five and one of the two finalists had been 
a woman. 



it was 



After a brief discussion, on motion made and seconded, 



VOTED: To recommend to the Executive Committee con- 
currence in the appointment by the Chancellor 
of Dennis L. Madson as Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs at the University of Massachu- 
setts at Amherst, as detailed in Doc. T78-115 



I 



I 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Kassler asked that the record show that he 
had voted affirmatively on the appointment as a means of bringing 
the matter to the attention of the Board. He would restate his 
concerns about the process, he said, at the Board meeting. 

There being no further business, the meeting was ad- 
journed at 11:50 a.m. 




/C^cJLtJL 



Dorothy Eichel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-5- 



Student 
Affairs 
9/13/78 



J 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



• 



I 






» 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

September 13, 1978; 12:00 noon 
Trustee Conference Room 
Thirteenth Floor 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President Knapp ; 
Trustees Burack, Morgenthau, Popko; Ms. Pinck representing Trustee 
Dukakis; Ms. Cohen, recorder 

Absent Committee Member : Trustee Breyer 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 12:15 p.m. by Chair- 
man Troy who stated that the purpose of the stand-up meeting was 
the approval of September, 1978 Preliminary Graduation Lists — 
UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-118) . 

Chairman Troy informed the Committee that there were 
1,037 candidates for undergraduate degrees at UM/Amherst, 261 for 
Master's degrees, 139 for Doctoral degrees and 9 candidates for 
certificates of graduate study. Chairman Troy noted that the 
September graduates at UM/Boston had been included in the list 
approved by the Committee at its May meeting. 

There was no further discussion, and on motion made and 
seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
September 19 78 preliminary graduation lists at the 
University of Massachusetts at Amherst (Doc. T78-118) 
subject to the completion of all requirements as 
certified by the Recorder of the campus. 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m. 



UM/Amherst — 
Approval of 
September 1978 
Preliminary 
Graduation Lists 
(Doc. T78-118) 




Dorothy EicHel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



' 



NOT USED 



' 



ATTENDANCE 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

September 13, 1978; 1:30 p.m. 
Chancellor's Conference Room 
Administration Building 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Knapp; 
Trustees Burack, Crain, Dennis, Marks, Shearer and Troy; Trea- 
surer Brand; Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Robertson 

Other Trustees : Trustees Breyer , Kassler, Krumsiek, McNulty, 
McNeil, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Romer and Sawtelle; Mr. 
Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Dr. Grady representing Trustee Fielding; Ms. 
Owens representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for Management; Mr. 
Searson, General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery 

UM/Boston : Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger 

The meeting came to order at 1:30 p.m. The first item 
of business was Concurrence in the Appointment of Vice Chancel- 
lor for Student Affairs — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-114, -115). Chair4 
man Healey said the Committee was being asked to recommend that 
the Board concur with the President in the appointment by Chan- 
cellor Bromery of Dennis L. Madson as Vice Chancellor for Student 
Affairs and to recommend approval of the Personnel Action set 
forth in Doc. T78-114. 

President Knapp noted that the matter had been discussec 
earlier in the day by the Committee on Student Affairs. The in- 
tent had been to bring the matter to the August meeting of the 
Board; however, for a variety of reasons, this had not been pos- 
sible. President Knapp said that all standard procedures had 
been followed in the search process and concluded by recommend- 
ing approval of the action. 

Trustee Shearer said that the Committee on Student Af- 
fairs had agreed to recommend concurrence; however, Trustee 
Kassler said that, as he was one of only two Committee members 
present at the meeting, he had voted to recommend only in order 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Vice Chancellor 
for Student Af- 
fairs 

(Doc. T78-114, 
-115) 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to bring the matter to the attention of the Board. 

Trustee Kassler said he had been troubled when reading 
the material to find that the Vice Chancellor's Search Committee 
on May 22, 1978, reported to the Chancellor that there were two 
candidates for the position. Then, without any contact with the 
Board of Trustees, an overscale salary offer was made to one of 
the two individuals. The offer was accepted on July 7, 1978. 
Further, the individual had since been employed and was now on 
the staff. While the Chancellor's letter to the successful can- 
didate did state that the appointment and salary were subject to 
the approval of the Board of Trustees, it was important to note 
that the letter invited the candidate to appear on campus and 
commence work as of September 6, 1978. 

Trustee Kassler said he was troubled, as in his experi- 
ence there had been previous instances where appointments with 
overscale salaries had come to the Board after rather than be- 
fore the fact. He stressed that he had no questions regarding 
the credentials of the individual being discussed. Nevertheless 
he was very troubled by the process. It was his understanding 
that no such decisions were to be made without Board approval. 
As was known, if Mr. Madson were being paid within the state 
salary scale, there would be no question to come before the 
Board and the individual would have been hired without Board 
approval. 

Mr. Lynton pointed out that there were two separate ac- 
tions involved. One was the concurrence of the Board with the 
appointment of a Vice Chancellor, which action was mandated by 
the governance document regardless of the salary offered. Sec- 
ondly, a salary which was above the state maximum, by statute, 
had to be approved by the Board. 

Trustee Kassler said that both actions had been taken 
and that the Trustees were now being asked to approve the ac- 
tions ex post facto. He said he hoped that some way and somehow 
the question of process could once and for all be resolved, and 
that there would be a University-wide uniform procedure wherein 
questions of overscale appointments could be brought to the at- 
tention of the Executive Committee for a vote prior to the time 
any letters of commitment were sent to candidates for positions. 

Trustee Kassler said he had recited the dates of this 
latest action for a particular purpose — at least prior to the 
June Board meeting there were but two candidates for the Vice 
Chancellorship. If at that time there was a question of 
whether it would be appropriate to pay overscale and what range 
the Board wished to establish for the position, there was time 
to have given the Board an opportunity to make those decisions. 

Mr. Lynton said that the intention had been to bring 
the matter to the Board in August. Also, he said, there was a 
Board-approved salary scale for the position and the salary 



-2- 



» 



l 



f 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

offered was within that scale. The salary was, however, above 
the state maximum, and for that reason the Board was being asked 
to approve the personnel action. 

Trustee Kassler said that it should be noted that the 
salary offered, while consistent with that of the previous full- 
time incumbent, was in excess of the salary for a comparable posi- 
tion at Boston by several thousand dollars. Whether or not this 
was appropriate was a question which the Board should have had an 
opportunity to examine. Also, while the support materials cited 
salaries for the position from other universities, none of those 
cited were for universities in the Commonwealth of in the North- 
east. There was an opportunity and a proper procedure which 
should have been addressed, and the consent of the Board should 
have been sought if only by means of telephone calls to members 
of the Executive Committee. There was time to have done this. 
Trustee Kassler said it was his belief that it was not done be- 
cause there was a feeling that it was not necessary to do so. He 
said it was his opinion that the Board, in previous instances of 
this sort, had clearly indicated that it did want to review ques- 
tions of this sort. 



Chancellor Bromery said that in determining the salary 
he had followed Board approved guidelines. Also, when an over- 
scale salary was being considered, procedure mandated that the 
Chancellor discuss the matter with the President. This he had 
done prior to making the offer to Mr. Madson, and President Pat- 
terson had agreed that the salary was appropriate. As had been 
stated, the intention had been to bring the matter to the August 
Board meeting; however, there were certain technicalities in makin 
and overscale appointment which prevented this. Chancellor Bromery 
concluded by noting that in all of his communications with Mr. 
Madson he had stressed that both the appointment and the salary 
were subject to concurrence by the President and the Board. 

Trustee Kassler said he sensed the technicality was the 
rationale for paying the candidate overscale. That had to be 
worked out, and this had prevented the matter from coming to: any:" 
prior meeting. Trustee Kassler said this seemed to lend credence 
to his concern that people should not assume Board concurrence 
without first having contacted the Board rather than senior staff. 



President Knapp said he shared the concern over the prob- 
lem of the timeliness of the Madson recommendation. He said he 
agreed that the Executive Committee should be informed when an ap- 
pointment with a salary over the state maximum was being con- 
sidered, and that this should be done prior to making a firm offer 
to a candidate. Trustee Troy said that he, too, was in agreement 
with the concerns expressed. 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



-3- 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



UM/ Amherst 
and UM/ 
Boston — 
Chancellor 
Searches 
(Doc. T78- 
116) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said that a study of executive compen- 
sation was being undertaken. The matter of establishing Univer- 
sity salary ranges which went above the state maximum had created 
some confusion in terms of directions to the administration. The 
study would include information on the methods and rationales for 
overscale appointments. He said there was no question but that 
procedures had to be tightened so that when the Board was being 
asked for concurrence in such appointments, this would be done in 
a fashion which would allow the Board time to consider the matter 
properly. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 



I 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
with the President in the appointment by the 
Chancellor of Dennis L. Madson as Vice Chancel- 
lor for Student Affairs at the University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst, as detailed in Doc. 
T78-115. 



and further 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 

the Personnel Action as set forth in Doc. T78-114. 

The Committee then discussed Chancellor Searches — UM/ 
Amherst and UM/Boston (Doc. T78-116). President Knapp reminded 
the Trustees that at the July 10 meeting of the Executive Committee 
there had been a general discussion of the matter of searches for 
Chancellors, and the Committee had reached certain conclusions re- 
garding the search process. President Knapp said he was recom- 
mending that the Boston and Amherst searches now begin and that 
the Chairman be asked to name the search committees in accordance 
with the governance document. Further, it was recommended that 
each committee consist of two Trustees, a member of the central 
administration, and, from the respective campus, four faculty 
representatives, a student, an alumni representative and a member 
of the campus administration. 



President Knapp said his further recommendation was that 
each search committee, in consultation with the President, indicat 
to him and to the Executive Committee, the process each intends 
to follow; and that each search committee recommend from three to 
five candidates for consideration. 

President Knapp said he was also suggesting that an ad 
hoc committee of Trustees be established which would serve as an 
interviewing committee on behalf of the Board as the search pro- 
cess entered the final stages. Finally, it was recommended that 
the President, after consultation with the ad hoc committees, 
present to the Board one of the three to five final candidates. 



I 



•4- 



P 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack said that it was her recollection that at 
the July meeting of the Committee and at the August meeting of the 
Board the issue of the number of candidates to be brought to the 
Board had been discussed and, to her belief, resolved. That is, 
at least two candidates would be brought before the Board. 

Trustee Burack said that there were two aspects of the 
suggested process that were somewhat awkward. One was the super- 
imposition of a new layer in the process-^namely, the ad hoc com- 
mittee of Trustees — in addition to the two Trustees on the search 
committee. If the aim of this proposal was to increase Trustee 
involvement, it would be preferable to increase the number of 
Trustees on the search committtee and dispense with the ad hoc 
committee. Secondly, Trustee Burack continued, she would not vote 
for the recommended process unless it included provision for bring 
ing at least two candidates before the Board. The positions to 
be filled were of such importance that the Board must have some 
choice to make at the end of the search process. 

President Knapp said that the Chancellor's searches were 
an integral part of the process of forming a leadership team con- 
sisting of the President and the Vice Presidents as well as the 
Chancellors of the three campuses. It was essential that this 
team work cohesively in giving leadership to the University. It 
was for this reason that he felt strongly that the President had to 
be in a position where he could recommend to the Board the indi- 
vidual he thought could offer leadership not only on a given cam- 
pus but to the University as a whole. The President concluded by 
saying that it was his hope that the search processes could be 
conducted without any dissent among those involved at the time the 
appointments were made. 



Trustee 0' Sullivan said that from a University-wide 
perspective, with a new President, and Chancellors being sought 
for Amherst and Worcester, the initiation of a search for a Chan- 
cellor for the Boston campus was inadvisable. Chancellor Van 
Ummersen's performance since her appointment had been commendable 
and without serious controversy. From the Boston campus point of 
view a search now for a new Chancellor would be inopportune. 
Dean Riccards of the College of Arts and Sciences had been in of- 
fice for only fifteen months, the Deans of the other two colleges 
had resigned. So many new major officials could only prove detri- 
mental. Furthermore, long-range plans for the campus were now 
being prepared for Board consideration. Without a Chancellor who 
was familiar with the plans, their effectiveness would be lessened. 
Therefore, Trustee 0' Sullivan continued, he proposed that the 
search for a new chancellor at Boston be delayed and that Dr. Van 
Ummersen be given the support of the Board to continue as Chancel- 
lor. 

Professor Martin said he wished to underscore Trustee 
0' Sullivan's remarks and to make a point that was perhaps more 



-5- 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

important than the question of timing. Chancellor Van Ummersen 
had been doing an excellent job. She had won the confidence of 
the people on campus. She had changed the budgeting procedures 
so that they were open and much more sensible. She was taking 
steps to improve the campus administration and was moving forward 
in a number of other areas. Professor Martin said his concern was 
that the search might fail to find a candidate with Chancellor Var 
Ummersen' s qualities and asked that the Board permit her to be a 
candidate for the chancellorship. 



Trustee Dennis said that from the beginning it had been 
agreed that the person appointed to be acting Chancellor would not 
be considered for the permanent position. He said he saw no reasoh 
to change this stipulation. Trustee Marks agreed. He pointed out 
that it had been clearly stipulated in advance that the person whcj 
was appointed acting Chancellor would be precluded from considera- 
tion as a candidate for the permanent chancellorship. He noted 
that when the Trustees appointed an interim, acting chancellor, 
they did not do so on the supposition that they would be surprised! 
if the person appointed did a superlative job. The reason the 
person was appointed was that it was the judgement of the Presi- 
dent's Office and of the Board that the person would take a very 
difficult job and would do it well. 

Trustee Marks said the issue did not revolve around 
Chancellor Van Ummersen, for whom all of the Trustees have a 
great admiration. The basic issue involved a set of preconditioned 
stipulations to which all had agreed. If the Trustees were to 
breach this agreement in the case of the Boston campus, then in 
future searches the University's word would be suspect in the 
academic community. Trustee Marks concluded by stating that he 
would oppose the reconsideration of the agreement. 

Trustee Crain said that it should be noted that con- 
ditions had changed since the stipulations had been agreed upon. 
At that time the Chancellorships at Worcester and Amherst had been 
stable. New there was a need to find Chancellors for both cam- 
puses and this was an important variable. Trustee Crain said he 
was very anxious to see the University attract, in one way or 
another, a female to a leadership role in the University. 



Trustee Burack said that she wished to return to her 
original point regarding the search process. She then read to the 
Board the following excerpt from the August 2, 1978, Board minutes 
relative to how many candidates were to be interviewed: 

"Trustee Burack said that the wording seemed to contra- 
dict the intent and that she could not vote for the proposal as it 
was written. Chairman Healey asked if it would be acceptable if 
the wording were to be changed to state that the Board could in- 
terview not less than three candidates, nor more than five if it so 
wished. Trustee Burack said it would be. 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

"Chairman Healey said that this would be done." 

Trustee Burack said that she was somewhat disturbed by 
the fact that the Board seemed to have come to an agreement in 
August, only to have it changed in a memorandum prepared for the 
September meeting. She said she would still not vote for the pro^ 
posal unless it included provision for at least two or three 
candidates tc come before the fuJJ Board. 

Chairman Healey asked if there were otbei issues that 
should be discussed. Trustee McNeil said that because of the 
fact that there were so many openings for high administrative 
positions and because in the past she had had some question about 
the stand the Board had taken on affirmative action , she would 
like to see the Board begin to articulate guidelines which would 
clearly state and direct all search committees to adhere to a firm 
affirmative action policy. Trustee McNeil said that in looking 
over Trustee documents and personnel actions, she was not satisfidd 
that previous affirmative action guidelines were being followed. 
Now was the time to lay the goundwork for this policy. Chairman 
Healey said this was a matter that he had discussed with Trustee 
Dennis and it had been agreed that this should be an item on the 
agenda of the October Board meeting. 

Trustee Kassler said another issue was the matter of the 
proposed ad hoc committee which would interview candidates for the 
Board. He objected to this suggestion. To his mind, one of the 
most informative parts of the Presidential search had been the 
opportunity afforded to all members of the Board not cnly to parti- 
cipate and see the candidates but to begin to evolve ideas and 
concerns as a Board. These ideas and concerns were shared and this 
had resulted in the type of finalists that emerged from the presi 
dential search. Trustee Kassler said he was aware that it would 
be difficult to arrange meetings, particularly if one assumed that 
the Board would be involved in the pre-searches and that all of 
the Trustees would need the time to interview five candidates for 
each campus — that is, possibly fifteen candidates. 

Trustee Kassler then said that it was a very critical 
part of the job of the Trustees to work together not only in small 
groups and in committees but to really work as a Board of Trustees 
when dealing with major decisions. 

Trustee Troy said he saw nothing in the proposal for the 
ad hoc committee which would prevent the Trustees from doing that 
which they did during the Presidential search — that is, to invite 
any Trustee to any meeting of the ad hoc committee. Trustee 
Kassler said that the search committee, made up of Trustees and 
others, would do the preliminary interviewing and screening and 
then make recommendations to the ad hoc committee. He said his 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



-7- 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

point was that an ad hoc committee might well evolve from the 
search process--that is, no more than four Trustees may wish to 
attend all of the interviews. Trustee Kassler said he did not 
wish to formalize the concept of the ad hoc committee. None of 
the Trustees should assume that because Trustee X was on the com- 
mittee, this, therefore, meant that anything Trustee X said was 
acceptable. Each and every one of the Trustees had a responsibilil 
to participate in the search process, and that responsibility was! 
critical in the final interviews. Trustee Troy said he wished to 
state again that the ad hoc committee was nothing other than a 
spearhead. If other Trustees wished to participate in the com- 
mittee's deliberations, this would be perfectly acceptable. He said 
he saw no issue in this regard at all . 

Trustee Morgenthau said the meeting seemed tc be getting 
trapped in procedural wrangles and seemed to be forgetting the 
purpose of the whole exercise — that is, to get three good Chan- 
cellors who could work with one good President, and to have 
Trustee participation in the process. She said she was very much 
concerned that the Trustees might get bung up on the smaller de- 
tails. Obviously, the Trustees should be involved at all stages 
of the selection process and particularly at the final stages. 
Whether Trustee participation was to be achieved by increasing the I 
number of Trustees on the search committee, or by establishing an ! 
ad hoc committee, was something the Trustees would have to decide.; 
Having made the decision the Board would then have to decide, for ' 
example, that four cf the Trustees would have to take the brunt of 
the official responsibility and operate, in some sense, as the 
Executive Committee operates. That is, all of the Trustees could, 
if they so desired, attend meetings of the Executive Committee anc 
participate fully in its deliberations. 

The proposed ad hoc committee, Trustee Morgenthau con- 
tinued, would allow the Board to be aware of all of the nuances 
of presidential responsibility as well as Trustee responsibility 
in the selection of the Chancellors. The Trustees had the final 
say; however, the President must be intimately part of the process 
and his position as President must be accepted in that process or 
the Trustees would run into trouble from the beginning. Trustee 
Morgenthau concluded her remarks by noting that she was opposed to 
changing the Board's stipulation that the acting Chancellor at 
Boston not be a candidate for the Chancellorship. While Dr. Van 
Ummersen's remarkable performance had been such as to make her an 
acceptable candidate for the presidency of a university anywhere 
in the country, the Board had undertaken an obligation and should 
adhere to it. 

Trustee Crain, speaking on the composition of the pro- 
posed ad hoc committee, said that if the committee were to operate 
as openly as did the Executive Committee, then he would suggest 
a change in the proposal — that is, that there would be a screening 
by no fewer than four Trustees, but allowing any other Trustee to 
participate. Trustee Crain tben asked President Knapp what his 



■8- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

reaction would be if, for example, the Board appointed a committee 
of four Trustees, and ten Trustees were to appear at a committee 
meeting. President Knapp said he had no objection to all of the 
members of the Board appearing at a meeting of such a committee 
and participating fully in the discussion. The important thing 
was to have one small cohesive group that participated in the 
interview process and thus would be able to make comparisons among 
the candidates and come to informed judgements. 

Trustee Burack said that the proposal would make the , 
process unwieldy. If the number of Trustees or the search commit- 
tee were to be increased by just one and then if agreement was 
reached or: what the Executive Committee -voted in August, namely 
to bring at least twc or three finalists to the Board, then the 
ad hoc committee could be done, away with; the search committee 
could serve as the small cohesive group. 

Trustee Breyer said that it seemed that everyone was 
aiming at the same point; however, there was divergence as to how 
the point could be reached. Obviously, there had to be meaningful 
Trustee input before any decisions were reached. Based on his 
experience with the Presidential search, he said he favored, as 
had been suggested, having a group of four Trustees who were 
responsibile for focusing on the search process. While there was 
emphasis prior to the initiation of a search on insuring the right 
of every Trustee to attend interviews and meetings, during the 
search itself there was difficulty in finding the time to attend. 
Further, the University was embarking on three searches at once. 
For this reason, Trustee Breyer continued, the suggestion of 
having a committee of four Trustees could be seen as an inclusive 
notion, not an exclusive one, and for that reason was desirable, 
particularly as there seemed to be agreement that any Trustee 
could attend any meeting. 

In the matter of changing the decision regarding the 
candidacy of the acting Chancellor, Trustee Breyer said he would 
oppose this. First, it would affect the search process in a 
number of ways. Second, it would establish a precedent which 
Would affect future searches. 



Trustee Breyer concluded his remarks by agreeing with 
Trustee McNeil in the need for strong affirmative action principles 
in all the searches. 

Trustee Kassler, speaking as the chairperson of the 
committee which had selected Chancellor Van Ummersen, said that he 
did not feel the stipulation regarding the acting chancellor's 
candidacy should be reversed. However, there was a problem in 
yiew of the fact that the Board would be conducting three searches 
at once, and the seeming impossibility that, the Trustees, acting 
as a committee of the whole, would have the time to attend all the 
interviews and meetings. However, this problem could be alleviate^ 
:>y dealing with Worcester and Amherst first, and in effect, putting 
the Boston search "on hold." 



-9- 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Kassler said that as the Board was putting to- 
gether a new administrative team, he wanted to make sure that the 
search meetings would be held only after all Trustees had had an 
opportunity to indicate what times would be convenient for them. 
Dealing with only two searches at once would relieve some of the 
pressure. 

In the matter of having certain Trustees designated to 
interview candidates, Trustee Kassler said he felt this was un- 
necessary. Such interviews should simply be arranged the same 
way as were Board meetings. In other words, an attempt should be ! 
made to accommodate as many people as possible. Also, the candi- 
dates should be asked to supply alternate dates. If, as had been 
suggested, this was how things were going to work out in any event 
then there was no need to formalize that which was unnecessary. 

There then ensued a brief discussion between those who 
favored having an agreed upon number of Trustees who were respon- 
sible for the interview process and those who favored increasing 
Trustee representation on the search committees. Chairman Healey j 
then asked Trustee Kassler if he contemplated that at the level 
of participation of the full Board there would be recommendations 
with respect to three to five candidates, or that there would be 
a larger number of candidates involved. Trustee Kassler said that 
he thought that the search committee would narrow down the number 
of candidates to six or seven or whatever number was appropriate. 
These people would then be interviewed by the Trustees, and it 
would be desirable at that point to have an analysis of the candi-i 
dates by the President and by others as to ranking and position. 
Then, the Trustees as a whole, having seen all of the finalists 
and having all the information, would make their decision. 



Trustee Marks said that after hearing all the variations 
and permutations on the theme, he wished to offer an observation. 
His experience with searches had shown that what starts out as a 
very orderly ballet process degenerates into a series of ministeps. 
Events occur which lead the search ccmmittee off course. Time 
schedules do not hold up. Interest levels wane in the case of 
both Trustees and candidates. For these reasons, Trustee Marks 
continued, and having heard all the suggested variations, he had 
no problem in accepting the proposals put forth by President Knapp. 
The suggested four member Trustee ad hoc committee would serve a 
useful purpose — that of serving as a final screen in the three 
searches, a process which was going to exhaust everyone. Trustee 
Marks said he had but one minor variation to add to the President' 
recommendations; namely, that if any search found several strong 
candidates, then in that case more than one candidate should be 
brought before the Board. He reminded the Board that after the 
Trustees bad approved a candidate the President had to live with 
that individual. The recommendations in the memorandum were 
realistic in terms of what would probably happen, and realistic, in 
terms of moving the whole search process forward on three fronts. 
The latter was imperative in order to choose the administrative 
team and have it in action. Finally, Trustee Marks concluded, 



-10- 



i 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

he did not see that the recommendations precluded meaningful 
Trustee involvement in any way. 

Trustee Dennis said that the question to be answered 
first was that of the number of candidates to be brought before 
the full Board. Once this matter was settled, then the issue of 
process could be addressed. Trustee Morgenthau suggested that 
more than one candidate be brought before the Board. If there 
was agreement on this, then the rest of the process as recommendec 
was acceptable. 

Trustee Morgenthau said she agreed with Trustee Marks 
in his suggestion that all the searches start simultaneously, as 
slippages in the calendar of any of the three search committees 
were inevitable. This was beyond the control of any search pro- 
cedure or committee. 

Trustee Troy said he supported the proposal that more 
then one candidate be brought to the Board. However, it would 
be desirable to limit the number of candidates to three. Trustee 
Troy said he thought that the President had the right and respon- 
sibility to indicate to the Board his first choice among the 
candidates . Trustee Burack said she was pleased that the Board had 
again turned to the matter of bringing more than one candidate to 
the Board. She said she thought that asking the President to 
rank the candidates would be unfair to him because prior to any 
finalists being brought to the Board, be it two or three, the 
President would have assured the Board that any one of the final- 
ists would be acceptable; and if he were to rank the candidates 
and the Board were to choose someone other than his first choice, 
he would be at a disadvantage. 



Chairman Healey said that he would expect that any candi- 
date brought to the Board would be acceptable to the President. 
The President could not be expected to administer the University 
without at least that. Also, while the President should not be 



Exec. 
9/13/78 



required to comment as to his preferences 
do so. 



he should be invited to 



Chairman Healey then said that as the meeting was 
operating as a committee of the whole, he saw no point in con- 
tinuing the Executive Committee meeting. He suggested that the 
Committee meeting be adjourned and that the Board meeting commence 
forthwith. 

The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 




Dorothy Eichel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-11- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



} 



ATTENDANCE 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON AUDITS 

September 14, 1978; 9:00 a.m. 
Trustee Conference Room 
Thirteenth Floor 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Dennis; Dr. Grady repre- 
senting Trustee Fielding; Ms. Eichel, recorder 



Absent Committee Member: Trustee Crain 



Central Administrative Offices : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President 



for Management; Mr. Hogan, University Controller; Mr. Stine, As- 
sistant Vice President 

UM/ Amherst: Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor for Administration 



and Finance and Director, Office of Budgeting and Institutional 
Studies; Mr. Harris, Director, Campus Center; Mr. Warren Director, 
Auxiliary Enterprises 

UM/Boston: Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 



Finance 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Director of Finance; Mr. Ference, 



Group Practice Administrator; Mr. Fosselman, Controller 

Invited Guests : Mr. John Baran and Mr. Michael Chris tensen of 
Ernst & Ernst, Auditors 



The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by 
Chairman Dennis. At the request of the Chairman, Mr. Hester gave 
a brief status report on Internal Auditing . He said that the 
Assistant Director of the Office of Internal Auditing was working 
with the Bursar's Office at UM/Amherst as a consultant, comparing 
current controls with regard to cash handling, segregation of 
duties, etc., with recommended controls. This was a spinoff, he 
said, from the new billing/accounts receivable installation. 

Mr. Hester said that the apparent cash shortage 
in the Summer Conference Housing receipts which was shown in Audit 
Reports No. 78-2 and No. 78-3 was finally being investigated by 
the Hampshire County District Attorney's office. An audit had 
been performed of the Advocate's Program in the School of Educa- 
tion. This report was still in a draft stage and had not yet 
been sent to the campus. He said that cash handling audits were 
being performed at some of the major cash handling locations. A 
cash handling audit of the UM/Amherst Bursar's Office was currently 
in draft stage. Work was progressing on the billing/accounts re- 
ceivable installation project. A draft response to the Peat, 



Status Report 
on Internal 
Auditing 



Comm. on 

Audits 

9/14/78 



Status Re- 
port on 
FY 7 7 and 
FY78 Finan- 
cial Aid 
Audits 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Marwick, Mitchell financial aid controls study had been prepared. 
This would be submitted to the campuses for their approval. 

Mr. Hester reported that the UM/Worcester Bursar 
had left the employment of the University, and an audit had been 
performed of the Bursar's Office at Mr. Cathey's request. An 
equipment audit had also been performed at UM/Worcester; in ad- 
dition, an audit of gasoline handling procedures had indicated that 
an excellent job was being done in this area. 

In response to Chairman Dennis's query, Mr. Hester 
said that there were currently two members on the Internal Au- 
diting staff, both located in the Goodell Building at UM/Amherst, 
He said that the full complement of staff would include the Di- 
rector, six auditors and a clerk- typist . Chairman Dennis asked for 
a report on the current status of the search for a Director of Au- 
dits. Mr. Hester said that the two searches had resulted in the 
consideration of seven final candidates, all of whom for one 
reason or another — more attractive positions or higher salaries — 
had gone elsewhere. He said he felt the best method now would be 
to seek candidates through personal contacts in higher educational 
circles and through auditing firms. Chairman Dennis said that 
since this search had been underway for eighteen months, he con- 
sidered the hiring of the Director of first priority. Dr. Grady 
suggested that it might be necessary to make a compromise in order 
to fill the position; that is, to take a younger person with less 
experience, who would be willing tc work for a salary within the 
state salary scale. If a compromise had to be made, he said, it 
was necessary for the administrative staff person who would be in- 
terviewing the candidates to have some assurance that the Trustees 
would stand behind his recommendation. Mr. Hester said one prob- 
lem in recruitment had been the lack of a permanent President and 
Vice President for Management, to whom the Director would be re- 
porting. This problem was now at least partially solved by the 
appointment of President Knapp. 

It was the sense of the meeting that since all af- 
firmative action requirements had been met and the need for a 
Director was urgent, the personal contact approach would be appro- 
priate and that a less experienced person might have to be accepted 
in order to accommodate the salary limitations. Chairman Dennis 
expressed the desire that a candidate be recommended to him by mid 
December. 

Chairman Dennis asked next for a status report on 
the FY 1977 and FY 1978 Financial Aid Audits . Mr. Hester said 
that when proposals had been solicited, eleven minority firms 
and eight small businesses had been invited to bid; however, none 
of these had submitted proposals. Of the proposals received, the 
estimated costs had ranged from $12,800 to $54,500 and the esti- 
mated hours from 460 to 1700. He said that a recommendation would 
be made to the Audit Committee shortly and asked Chairman Dennis 



I 



I 



-2- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

if the audit firm could be hired in his absence upon Trustee 
Crain's approval. Chairman Dennis agreed to this procedure. 

With regard to the FY 1978 Amherst Campus Auxiliary 



Comm. on Audits 
9/14/78 



Enterprises Audits , Mr. Hester said that requests for proposals 
had been submitted to the Audit Committee. These were being bid 
in two groups — Group 1 including the Campus Center, the Residence 
Hall System and Continuing Education, which had been audited pre- 
viously by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell; and Group 2 including Student 
Activities, Recognized Student Organizations, Athletic Trust Fund, 
Fine Arts Center and Council, Community Activities Fund, New Stu- 
dent Counseling, Identification Card Trust Fund, University Press, 
and Residence Hall Telephone Trust Fund, none of which had pre- 
viously had external audits. The requests for proposals had been 
reviewed and approved by the campus, he said, and if the Audit 
Committee also approved, he would put them out to bid. Chairman 
Dennis asked that this be done. 



Mr. Hester spoke next on the status of the State 
Auditor's Reports . He explained the process by which the State 
audits were developed. He said that the state audits were submit- 
ted to the University in draft form, and the University then re- 
sponded to questions raised in the draft. The State Auditor's of- 
fice then incorporated the responses into the final report, which 
was then circulated. After release of the final report, the Manage- 
ment Bureau within the Executive Office of Administration and Fi- 
nance sends a letter to the University requesting official re- 
sponse to listed findings from the report. The Harbor Campus let- 
ter for FY 1977, he said, contained only one request for response, 
relating to day care, to which the University had replied. He 
then asked Mr. Hogan to report on the status of the UM/Amherst 
and UM/Worcester audits. 



FY78 Amherst 
Campus Auxili- 
ary Enterprises 
Audits 



Status Report 
On State Audi- 
tor's Reports 



Mr. Hogan said that the draft report for UM/Amherst 
for FY 1976 had been received by the campus in June 1978. A re- 
sponse had been made on July 14. The final report had not yet 
been issued. He understood that the FY 1977 audit would be com- 
bined with the FY 1978 audit and one report would be issued. 
Chairman Dennis asked why the Audit Committee had not yet received 
the draft audit. Mr. Hester said that this was the result of slip 
page during the summer and that it would be forwarded forthwith. 
Chairman Dennis expressed the desire for a complete inventory of 
audit reports. 

Mr. Hogan said that the Medical' Center audit for 
FY 1977 was in draft form. The quality of state audits, he said, 
was generally not good, and the FY 1977 audit of the Medical Cen- 
ter was so poor that a meeting had been requested with the Deputy 
State Auditor. He said the state auditors did not understand the 
University's computerized accounting system and had made no effort 
to do so. The University system, he said, was very complex and 
there was no one in the State Auditor's office who was capable of 



-3- 



Comm. on 

Audits 

9/14/78 



University 
Hospital/ 
Group Prac- 
tice Audit 



Amherst 
Campus re- 
sponse to 
FY 197 7 Ex- 
ternal 
Audits 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

handling audits of the system. It was noted that because of the 
state salary scale, it had been impossible to hire auditors who 
could handle this work, but recently auditors had been exempted 
from the salary scale limitations and it was hoped that this prob- 
lem would soon be resolved. Mr. Hogan said that the federal 
government now required any state that received federal revenue- 
sharing funds to audit in accordance with AICPA guidelines, a fact 
that the University had not realized. Adding to this problem was ! 
the fact that although the University accounting system was on a 
cash basis, the Medical Center accounting system was on an accrual] 
basis. The draft reports indicated that records were not avail- 
able; this was misleading. The fact was that only cash informatidn 
was recorded in the University computer system; however, the ac- 
crual records were available as supplementary records. He said he 
felt the draft audit should be changed. The University met the 
state's requirements, and the state itself did not yet meet the 
AICPA requirements. Chairman Dennis said he might be of assistance 
in this area since he had been appointed to a committee which 
would be working with the state in the matter of compliance with 
the AICPA requirements. 



Chairman Dennis asked next for a status report on 
the University Hospital/Group Practice Audit . Mr. Hester said that 
John Baran of Ernst & Ernst, the external auditor, was present 
to answer questions. He said the Ernst & Ernst letter he had just 
received indicated that the Hospital audit was going well and was 
on schedule. On the Group Practice audit, there were some prob- 
lems with the accrual basis in that the records were in various 
stages of development and were not ready for audit. Either the 
University or the auditors would be required to compile the re- 
quired data. Ernst & Ernst had suggested a meeting to discuss the 
matter, and that would be held after the Audit Committee adjourned 



At the request of Dr. Grady, Mr. Ference gave a 
brief history of the Group Practice Plan. Mr. Baran then explained 
that cash records were available through the central computer sys- 
tem; however, accounts receivable and payable, prepaid insurance, 
and other accrual items were not currently available, but could 
be constructed from source documents. Mr. Cathey said that some 
of these records were currently being kept by departments; they 
could be pulled together by internal staff, but it would take time 
to do it. Chairman Dennis asked that he be informed of the out- 
come of the meeting on this issue. 

Chairman Dennis asked next for discussion of the 
Amherst Campus Response to the FY 1977 External Audits . Mr. 
Beatty reported that, as a result of these external audits, he had 
created the position of Director of Auxiliary Services and Food 
Services and had appointed Mr. Arthur Warren as Director. He said 
that both Mr. Warren and Mr. William Harris, Director of the Cam- 
pus Center, were on hand to answer questions. He also noted that 
Mr. Harris had not been the director of the Campus Center at 



-4- 



I 



l 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the time of the audit. Mr. Beatty then reviewed briefly the re- 
sponses to the audits of the University Health Services, the 
Balanced Transportation and Parking, and the Boarding Halls Trust I 
Funds, which he said had revealed only minor problems. Discussions 
ensued as to whether records should be kept which would indicate 
the efficiency of management of each of the dining commons, rather 
than evaluating the total system. Controls for concessions were 
also discussed. Chairman Dennis asked for an update on the pro- 
cedures which were currently being followed, indicating improve- 
ments in controls where deemed desirable. 

Discussion then turned to the response to the au- 
dit of the Campus Center. Mr. Hester explained that an internal 
audit was underway at the time the external audit by Peat, Marwickj, 
Mitchell was initiated. Mr. Beatty then gave a brief history of 
the Campus Center, its various functions and its changing manage- 
ment. Contributing to the problems at the Center was the fact 
that at the time it was built, the campus was expected to grow to 
an enrollment of 35,000 students and the core campus was to be 
closed to surface parking. Originally, the building was envisioned 
to house Continuing Education, a student union, the store and a 
garage. At that time a regional conference center for continuing 
education was needed in the New England area; however it was 
eventually built in Durham, New Hampshire. 



Chairman Dennis turned discussion at this point to 
the Internal Audits 78-2 and 78-3 of. the Campus Center , which had 
originally discovered the apparent shortage in the cash account. 
Mr. Hester explained that a financial audit by Internal Audit 
Staff had found the shortage in May of 1977. A shortage had oc- 
curred in the spring of 1976 and another in the fall of the same 
year. The internal audit indicated that a total of $15,000 was 
missing. This figure had been obtained from source documents and 
had grown from the initial shortage of $7,619 to the current fig- 
ure as a result of extending the period of time covered by the 
audit and by the discovery of additional source documents. The 
missing funds have been replaced by the bonding company. Chairman 
Dennis asked what controls were lacking that allowed this theft to 
occur. Mr. Hester explained the practices which had made it pos- 
sible for this shortage to go undetected and the steps that had 
been taken to ensure that it would not be likely to happen in the 
future. He said one of the problems had been that cash had been 
collected at various locations rather than at a central location. 
Since this unit had not yet been reaudited by Internal Auditing 
Staff, it was not yet possible to determine whether the additional* 
controls implemented had adequately solved the problem. Mr. 
Beatty said he had established a new set of cash handling proce- 
dures and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, had reviewed the procedures. 
Mr. Hester explained that although the Treasurer's Office had 
overall responsibility for this area, procedures had not been re- 
viewed since 1967, and the campus had grown considerably since 



Comm. on Audits 
9/14/78 



-5- 



Internal Audi 
78-2 and 78-3 
of the Campus 
Center 



ts 



i 



Comm. on 

Audits UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

9/14/78 

that time. Mr. Brand had recently reviewed and updated these pro- 
cedures. However, he said, the Treasurer's Office would develop 
only broad policies , and each campus would need to develop pro- 
cedures to handle its own specific operations. Chairman Dennis 
asked that the cash handling procedures be brought to the approp- 
riate committee of the Board for review 

Mr. Beatty explained that originally the Confer- 
ence Services had been under the control of Continuing Education 
and the Campus Center itself had been under separate management 
Later the Conference Services were moved from Continuing Education 
to the control of an advisory council which consisted of person- 
nel from each of the departments who used the service. Subsequent 
to this, the Continuing Education function moved from the Campus 
Center. Mr. Warren was taking a greater role in the supervision 
of the Conference Services. He said that the continuing change in 
the direct line of authority for Conference Services had contrib- 
uted to the problems at the Center. 

Chairman Dennis asked that discussion of problems 
within the Campus Center be carried over to the next meeting of 
the Committee. At that time he would ask for a report on how the 
new systems were functioning and whether there were still problems 
which .remained unresolved. Mr. Hester said that some of the mea- 
sures being implemented currently were interim measures and that 
they would eventually be integrated into the new accounts receiv- 
able system presently being installed. Mr. Hogan said that there 
was a need for all accounting personnel to report to one campus 
administrator, or at least to have one campus authority with ad- 
ministrative responsibility over all accounting systems and prac 
tices. Chairman Dennis said that a way must be found for all 
these separate accounting systems to get into the University com- 
puterized accounting system. 

Billing and The last item of agenda was a discussion of the 

Accounts Billing and Accounts Receivable Installation. Mr. Hogan said he 
Receivable had given a status report at the April meeting of the Committee on 
Installation Budget and Finance. Although there had been some slippage, he 

said, it was still anticipated that the system would be operational 
in the spring of 1979. The auxiliary enterprises would be phased 
into the system during the summer and fall of 1979. Mr. Hogan 
said there were some basic personnel and organizational problems 
that must be resolved in order to make the system work effectively 
Chairman Dennis said he would like an update on the progress in 
the resolution of organizational and personnel problems at the 
next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was 
adjourned at 12:15 p.m. 

Dorothy Eich^l 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 

•6- 



I 




I 



I 



1 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

September 20, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 
Trustee Conference Room 
Thirteenth Floor 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Troy; President Knapp ; 
Trustee Burack; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members: Trustees Breyer, Dukakis, Morgenthau 



and Popko 

Central Administration: Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 



Affairs; Mr. Lyons, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs 
UM/Amherst: Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 



Provost; Mr. Fantini, Dean, School of Education; Mr. Mellen, 
Acting Dean, College of Food and Natural Resources; Mr. Nolan, 
Acting Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Fine Arts 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 



for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Blair, Assistant Chancellor 

The meeting came to order at 10:10 a.m. The first item 
discussed was the Establishment of Five-College Department of 
Dance — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-119). Mr. Lynton said that this was 



a cooperative venture that had been in the making for some time. 
Mr. Allen explained that the other four colleges had approved the 
concept rather quickly; but that the faculty Senate at UM/Amherst 
tended to move somewhat slowly. 

Mr. Allen said that at the Amherst campus, dance was 
not a separate department; it was part of the Department of Music 
and Dance, having recently migrated there from the School of 
Physical Education. A very excellent proposal for a Five-College 
department was now ready for Board consideration. Cooperation 
among dance groups in the Amherst area was excellent, and was a 
very good example of how Five-College cooperation could work. Th^ 
groups had many complementary skills and used them to advantage. 
Lastly, the Five Colleges Incorporated had agreed to allocate some 
money from a recent bequest to the proposed department. 

Trustee Troy, noting that a Five-College Dance Council 
was in existence, asked if this proposal would convert the Council 
into a program. Mr. Allen said that the proposal would change the 
Council into a Five-College Department. He was not sure of how 
many administerial changes this would involve. 



UM/Amherst — 

Establishment 

of Five-College 

Department of 

Dance 

(Doc. T78-119) 



F and EP 
9/20/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack asked where the focus of the new depart- 
ment would be. Mr. Allen said that, as with other Five-College 
enterprises, the primary focus would be the University, though 
to a somewhat lesser extent than other enterprises, such as 
Astronomy. This was because the other schools were somewhat 
stronger in dance than in the other disciplines where there were 
Five-College programs. Chairman Troy asked if the University now 
offered a major in dance. Mr. Allen said it did not. However, 
such a major was being considered. Mr. Lyons said it should be 
noted that the major being considered would not emerge from the 
Five-College Department of Dance, but would be a University major, 

Trustee Burack asked if the University needed to have a 
separate major in dance if there was a Five-College major being 
offered. The separate major would inevitably result in yet 
another administrative structure. If the Five-College dance pro- 
gram proved to be as important as seemed likely, then there would 
have to be very strong reasons to approve a separate University 
major. Both Mr. Lynton and Mr. Allen said that this very point 
was being considered in the discussions on the proposed major. 
There was no further discussion and it was moved, seconded, and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the establishment of a Five-College Department 
of Dance at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst, as contained in Trustee Document T78-119. 
Upon such approval, the existing Five-College 
Dance Council shall be discontinued. 

The Committee then heard the Report from School o f 
Education — UM/Amherst. Mr. Fantini reminded the Trustees that the 
School of Education had gone through a very interesting period 
prior to his appointment as Dean in December, 1976. The School 
had received considerable notoriety, had been studied and re- 
studied by internal and external groups, and had become a source 
of concern to the Trustees. 



The problems, Mr. Fantini continued, had to do, at least 
in part, with a new mission given to the School in 1968. The 
School was to be a pioneering school which would not duplicate 
the mission of other schools. It was to be innovative and serve 
as a cutting edge in the furtherance of education. In effect, 
the School was given a license to depart from tradition. At the 
time, the School appeared to serve an important need. 



Mr. Fantini said that when he arrived there were two 
sets of concerns. One had to do with the mission itself; the 
second was the entire character of the organization of the School. 
There were perceptions that the School, in fulfilling its mission!, 
had compromised academic standards. On the managerial side there 
were shortcomings. Mr. Fantini said that the already mentioned 
studies of the School had been of great help to him, both in 
determining the School's considerable strengths and its weaknesses. 
Therefore, his task was to set the house in order. 



-2- 



I 



I 



UM/Amherst — 
Report from 
School of 
Education 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The first set of issues he addressed were the organi- 
zation and management of the School. The School had been organized 
in a loose federation of centers and these centers had later 
evolved into clusters. The task here was to bring the organiza- 
tional structure of the School closer to that of the University. 
It was important that this be done without weakening the spirit 
of the School, its flexibility and its personalized nature. All 
of the studies had urged that these facets of the operation be 
retained, as should be the innovative aspect. Mr. Fantini said 
his only concern with the last was that its scholastic base be 
strengthened. 

Another need that became apparent was that of quality 
control in the academic enterprise. For a time there had been 
considerable freedom in this area. The task then was to improve 
academic standards and to provide a system of accountability. 

The School had since been organized into three divisions 
This had streamlined the management system and, more importantly, 
had provided a sense of academic cohesion. The effort was to have: 
diversity and unity at the same time. One of the new divisions, 
Mr. Fantini continued, had to do with the field of instruction; ttye 
second dealt with research, administration and policy; the third 
dealt with applied behavioral sciences and human services. 

Mr. Fantini said another task undertaken was to re- 
examine yet again the mission of the School. There was agreement 
that it should be a comprehensive professional school that re- 
tained its innovative aspect, while making a sustained effort to 
! improve academic standards. In other words, while remaining in- 
novative, there would be a rededication to scholarship. It had 
also been determined that, as a public institution, the School 
should pay particular attention to the needs of the Commonwealth. 
While the School had a strong and important international program 
J and a national reputation, it was felt that a commitment to the 
I needs of the Commonwealth should be included in the mission 
statement . 

In the matter of bringing the governance of the School 
more into line with University practices, Mr. Fantini continued, 
a number of issues had been addressed. One was that under both 
the center and cluster systems personnel committees had been seen 
more as advocates than as screening and review mechanisms . This 
was no longer the case. 

Mr. Fantini said he had also established a number of 
task forces to review the Ed.D. program. This program was an in- 
tegral part of the school and the only Ed.D. program offered at 
a public institution within the state. While certain of the 
studies had stated that the School's Ed.D. compared favorably with 
the Ph.D., one result of the task forces recommendations was that 
there was now an eight step review procedure for all dissertations 
to insure accountability. 



-3- 



F and EP 
9/20/78 



F and EP 
9/20/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

In the matter of the fiscal problems of the School, Mr. 
Fantini said he had asked for a management audit on arrival. 
The audit cleared the School with regard to certain past practices 
and in fact said that, if anything, management controls were too 
tight. 

Two major reviews of the School have taken place since 
the agreement of a new mission statement — reorganization of the 
School and the establishment of new governance procedures. The 
National Association of Colleges of Teacher Education sent an 
accreditation team which examined both the undergraduate and 
graduate programs, and the NACTE had reaccredited the School for 
an additional seven years. In addition, the graduate program had 
also been reviewed by the University and had received good marks. 

Mr. Fantini said that, while there was still a long way 
to go, there had been progress. There was a sense now that all 
were working toward common goals, and that the division structure 
allowed for improved communication. In addition, Mr. Fantini said 
he had made efforts at fence-mending both within the University 
and with the educators in the field. 

Mr. Fantini said that the School had cut back on 
teacher education in light of the conditions in the market place. 
In 1972 there were about 2,000 undergraduates enrolled in the 
teacher education program. In 1978 there were between 400 and 500 
In this area, also, the School now had a more specialized set of 
objectives. 

In the discussion which followed a number of educational 
issues were raised and in each case evidence was offered that the 
School of Education, jointly at times with the College of Arts and 
Sciences, was aware of the issues and efforts were underway to 
address them. 

The next item of business was Highlights of Re-Accredi- 
tation Self-Study Reports — UM/Amherst and UM/Boston. As the 
Trustees had not had time to read either of the reports, the dis- 
cussion was very brief and it was agreed the reports would be disT 
cussed more fully at a later meeting. 

Chairman Troy called for a motion to enter Executive 
Session in order to discuss the tenure cases. The Committee, he 
said, would not reconvene in open session. At 11:55 a.m. without 
discussion it was moved, seconded, and on roll call, 



VOTED 



To enter executive session 



-4- 



I 



I 



UM/Amherst 
and UM/ Boston- 
Highlights of 
Re-Accredi- 
tation Self- 
Study Reports 

Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Troy, President Knapp and Trustee Burack 
voted for the motion. Trustees Breyer, Dukakis, Morgenthau and 
Popko were absent. 

At the conclusion of the discussion of the executive 
session it was moved, seconded and, on roll call, 



F and EP 
9/20/78 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
in the award of tenure by the President to the 
Faculty member at UM/Amherst named in Supple- 
ment IV to Trustee Document T78-089. 



and further 



VOTED : 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
in the award of tenure by the President to 
R. Glenn Brown, Professor of Food Science and 
Nutrition at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst; and to John Norman Austin, Professor 
of Classics at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst. 



At 12:20 p.m. it was voted to end the executive session 
and to adjourn the meeting. 

Chairman Troy, President Knapp and Trustee Burack voted 
^or all motions. Trustees Breyer, Dukakis, Morgenthau and Popko 
were absent. 




Dorothy Eiq[hel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-5- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEES 
ON STUDENT AFFAIRS AND 
BUDGET AND FINANCE 

September 27, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committees and Committee Staff: Chairman Crain; Chairman Shearer: 



President Knapp ; Trustees Dion, Kassler, 0' Sullivan and Romer; 
Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop ; Ms. Owens representing 
Trustee Okin ; Ms. Eichel, recorder 



Absent Committee Members : Trustees Anrig, Breyer, Dennis, Krumsiek 
Marks and McNeil 

Other Trustees : Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. 
Simmons, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. White, 
Director of University Relations 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor for Administratior. 
and Finance and Director, OBIS; Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Campbell, Director, Housing Office; Mr. 
Ganguli, Associate Director, Housing Office; Mr. Robinson, Directojr, 
Environmental Health and Safety; Professor Fletcher, Faculty 
R.epresentative 

UM/Boston: Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 



The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. by Trustee Petition from 



Shearer, Chairman of the Committee on Student Affairs. While 
awaiting the arrival of the students who had requested to speak 
about their concern relating to the rent increase in family housin 
units, Trustee Shearer asked for a brief overview of the process 
leading to the $19 rent increase and the subsequent Petition from 
the University Apartment Tenants — UM/Amherst. Mr. Madson said 
that although he was familiar with university housing problems, 
he was new to the situation at UM/Amherst and would ask Mr. 
Campbell, Director of the Housing Office, to give the overview. 
Mr. Campbell said that in the process of developing rent schedule^, 
the following two objectives were considered: (1) the development: 
of a system whereby the operation of the family housing units 
would reach a break-even point between income and expenses , and 
(2) a method for annualizing the past subsidy from the residence 



University Apart- 
ment Tenants — 
UM/Amherst 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

halls. He said that $407,000 was outstanding in loans from the 
residence halls to the family housing units. There had been no 
rent increase in family housing, he said, since FY 1976. The 
family housing units had exceptionally high fixed costs — debt 
service, 45%; utilities, 25%; and physical plant maintenance 24%. 
Also involved were inflationary costs. This year the University 
also had to contend with a fifty-third week payroll. No capital 
improvements had been built into the budget; and the $19 increase 
would only close the gap between income and expenses, it would not 
allow for a break-even operation. 

Mr. Ganguli, Associate Director of Housing, commented 
that the University housing units were very competitive when 
compared to rents of other housing units in the Amherst area. He 
said that the family housing units had one of the best fire alarm 
systems in the Commonwealth. In addition, he said, the University 
had provided five playgrounds for the housing units in response 
to student requests. 

In response to Trustee Kassler's question with regard 
to the length of time represented by the $407,000 in loans from 
the residence halls, Mr. Beatty said that the period covered was 
from 1970 to the present. The loans were made to the housing 
system to cover operating costs. 

Mr. Madson said that rents for the campus units were 
17.4 percent lower than the market in the area. The average rent 
was $181 per month, including utilities. The market averaged $209 
without utilities. The cost budgeted for utilities by the campus 
for the housing units for FY 1979 was $242,000. 

The students joined the meeting at this point and were 
asked to speak. Mr. Scott Balfour, spokesperson for the group, 
introduced the other speakers, and then spoke briefly. He said 
that the tenants felt the $19 increase was too much and they felt 
the announcement of the increase came too late, in June, when 
students were leaving or had left the campus. He said the in- 
crease had been opposed at a meeting of the Rents and Fees Commit 4 - 
tee in December 1977. Although they were opposed to the $19 in- 
crease, their major concern was that they had learned that the in- 
crease was just one phase of a five-year plan which included ad- 
ditional increases. The tenants, he said, had met with the Vice 
Chancellor for Student Affairs and with the acting Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance, and although both had been sym- 
pathetic with the tenants' views, the students had been told that' 
nothing could be done. Therefore, the tenants had decided to take 
matters into their own hands and had put the rent money into an 
escrow account rather than to pay it to the University. This, 
they felt was an action showing good faith. Although students 
had grown to accept the increasing costs of higher education, 
they felt that they had no input into the matter of rent increase 



I 



I 



-2- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. William Ponce next presented the views of the 
foreign students, explaining the impact such an increase had on 
them. He said that foreign students were on fixed subsidies from 
their governments. They were not eligible for welfare or food 
stamps. The stipends for teaching assistants, teaching asso- 
ciates and research assistants had not been increased for five 
years and did not cover the cost of their living expenses. If 
graduate students were not filling these posts, the University 
would have to hire others to do the work. 

The next speaker was Mrs. Charlene Reed-Mundell, who 
said that family housing units were rented by students with 
children, and sometimes both parents were going to school. They 
were serious students since they viewed this as their last oppor- 
tunity to get an education. Some of these families had moved 
into smaller quarters as a means of absorbing the rent increase. 
She said the tenants desired to work with the University admin- 
istration to resolve the problems in the housing units. She said 
they did not expect luxury housing, but they would like to solve 

the problems of cockroaches, peeling- paint , generally poor main- 
tenance, obstructed gutters and break- ins. 

Mr. Philip Martin was the next speaker. He said that 
North Village, the newest housing complex, had been completed in 
1971. The construction work on the complex, he said, was poor — 
the sliding doors were of poor quality, as was the plumbing work. 
The University, he said, paid no taxes on real estate and he felt | 
the revenues should cover the cost of operation. 

Mr. Jerry Reed-Mundell then spoke with regard to the 
alleged lack of participation of the students in the hearings of 
the Rents and Fees Committee. He said at the time the $19 rent 
increase had first been mentioned in October, he had understood 
that this was only a proposal and that the actual increase would 
be only a percentage of this amount. The students expected the 
amount of the increase would be less than the $19 and, therefore, 
were not unduly concerned at the time. They did not know that 
the $19 increase had been approved until it was announced in the 
Collegian in May. Undated letters were later delivered to the 



SA and B&F 
9/27/78 



tenants by the resident managers, at which time they were asked 
to get signatures from tenants indicating that they were aware of 
the upcoming increase. They are now receiving notices that their 
rent is in arrears. 

The final speaker was Sister Sally Marsh, who explained 
that although she was grateful to the University for allowing her 
to live in the family housing units because of a sight problem, 
she felt morally obligated to the tenants who had been helpful to 
her to participate In their statement of concern. She said her 
graduate student stipend was only $3600 a year at UM/Amherst. At 
other communities the stipend was as much as $5800. She said 
she feared for the future of family housing at UM/Amherst when 
i students could not afford to live in the units. She said that 



-3- 



SA and B&F 
9/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

there was lack of communication between the Housing Office and the 
tenants. She proposed the following: 

1. A moritorium on the rent increase until December 
31, 1978. 

2. Immediate formation of committees to work with the 
administration on housing matters. 

3. Increased and continuing communication betweeen the 
housing office and the tenants' association. 

4. A complete definition of the purpose and needs of 
family housing. 

5. Preparation of a study of comparative costs for 
family housing at UM/Amherst and other state 
universities . 

6. Compilation of an independent financial and physical 
audit. 

7. Depending on the outcome of the above proposals, the 
tenants association would surrender a list of tenants 
who have placed their rent in the escrow account so 
that evictions would be discontinued. 

Trustee Kassler asked what percentage of the rent due 
was represented in the escrow account. Mr. Balfour said the ten- 
ants had a commitment from 100 students, but he was not sure who 
had paid their rent to the university , or who had not paid it to 
either the University or into the escrow account. Trustee 
Kassler said it was his understanding that the issue was the amount 
of the uncrease and not the increase itself. He asked if there 
was consensus among the tenants on this. Mr. Reed-Mundell said 
that the $19 was not the breaking point in itself, but the fact 
that it was part of a five year plan which included additional 
increases . 

Mr. Beatty said that these units had been operating on 
a deficit. A financial and physical audit had been initiated. 
He said the units had to be self-sufficient. Mr. Madson said 
that he felt that self-liquidating operations were reasonable. 
He said he, too, was concerned about the cost of higher educa- 
tion, but there were only two solutions to the housing problem; 
either the services could be reduced, or the rent increased. He 
suggested the initiation of an active student/administration 
tenants' association to resolve some of these problems. He said 
that the University needed the assistance of the University 
Building Authority to resolve some of the problems. Capital cost^, 
he said, were not included in the operating costs which had re- 
sulted in the rent increase. Mr. Balfour said that it was not 
always easy to separate these kinds of costs and he was concerned 
that student money might be going toward the payment of capital 
costs . 

Trustee Crain said that he and other Trustees had grave 
concerns about the amount of bad debts. Tenants, he said, could 
not ignore their obligations. To do so, he said, would put the 



-4- 



r 



» 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustees in an untenable position. The students said they also 
believed that all tenants should pay their rent, since otherwise 
an undue burden was placed on the tenants who honored their ob- 
ligations. President Knapp , said Mr. Crain, had the matter of 
maintenance high on his priority list. He said the Committees 
could take no action at this time; however, he thought the point 
made about the stipends for teaching assistants was well taken. 
Trustee Romer said that stipends were related to educational costs; 
and wondered how well the University administration was doing in 
keeping the students informed about costs. 

President Knapp said he felt the presentation had been 
useful. The students had said they realized that rents must be 
paid. He thanked the students and they departed from the meeting. 

Trustee Kassler said that since Trustees Crain and 
Shearer must report back to the October meeting of the Board, they 
should summarize the six points made by the students. He said 
he felt the Trustees should know what percentage of the rents due 
was represented by the escrow account. He did not think the 
Trustees could deal with the other matters until they knew that 
the rents were being paid. 

President Knapp said that at a meeting of the senior 
staff earlier that day the matter of stipends had been discussed. 
It appeared that the graduate students had presented a petition 
to unionize, which had received no action. While this petition 
was in existence, there could be no raises. In the meantime, the 
University was falling behind in the marketplace for graduate 
students, which could only hurt the University in the long run. 

Mr. Lynton underscored President Knapp ' s remarks, adding, 
however, that stipends were not intended to represent income for 
the family. Professor Fletcher added that the quality of gradu- 
ate students had declined because of the lack of increases in 
stipends . 



Trustee Crain said that this had not been a matter of 
discussion at Trustee meetings, and he felt it should be. 
President Knapp said he had asked for an analysis from his staff 
on the subject. Mr. Beatty commented that historically, UM/ 
Amherst had raised stipends at the time faculty salaries were 
increased. There had been no increases in faculty salaries be- 
cause of the lack of a collective bargaining agreement. 

Ms. Owens asked how many foreign students were involved 
in the family housing units affected by the rent increase. Mr. 
Lynton replied that the number was small, as most of the foreign 
students were not married. 

Mr. Barrus said he detected an attitude on the part of 
the students indicating they felt information was being withheld 
from them. Mr. Beatty replied that he had attempted to deal with 



SA and B&F 
9/27/78 



-5- 



SA and B&F 
9/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the fee increases early in order to avoid this kind of situation, 
but it had just not worked out. Mr. Beatty and Mr. Lynton agreed 
that the longer the matter went unresolved, the greater the prob- 
lem would become. President Knapp said that if the Trustees agreed 
to change in the increase this year, they would be expected to re 
consider increases in future years. 

It was the sense of the meeting that, although the $19 
increase could not be reconsidered this year, the campus would 
work closely with the tenants group to ensure that in future yearj; 
increases would be carefully scrutinized as early in the budgeting 
process as possible. The campus administration will work with 
students in addressing the points raised in the presentation by the 
tenants . 

There was no further discussion and the meeting was 
adjourned at 12:20 p.m. 



I 





Dorothy ^ichel 
Assistant Secretary of the 
University 



-6- 



I 



I 



! 



ATTENDANCE 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEES 
ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 
AND BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 



September 27, 1978; 11:30 p.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committees and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain; Trustees Burack, 
Dion, Romer, Sawtelle; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop 

Absent Committee Members: Trustees Anrig, Breyer , Dennis, Dukakis, 
Krumsiek, Marks and McNulty 

Central Administration : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for 
Mangement ; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. 
Meehan, Consultant; Mr. Stine, Assistant Vice President 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor for Administratior. 
and Finance and Director, OBIS; Professor Fletcher, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 



FY 1980 
Capital 
Outlay Budget 



I 



for Administration and Finance; Professor Martin, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Bice, Hospital Director; Mr. Burneson, Associate 
Vice Chancellor for Administration; Mr. Turek, Budget Director 

The meeting was called to order at 12:20 p.m. by 
Trustee Crain, Chairman of the Committee on Budget and Finance. 
The one item of agenda was the FY 1980 Capital Outlay Budget 
Request . At the request of Trustee Crain, President Knapp opened jj Request 
the discussion. He said no major buildings were being proposed 
in this budget, and that he saw the first priority as insuring 
that the University buildings and equipment were not allowed to 
deteriorate. This requires: (1) money for deferred maintenance 
work, (2) equipment, and (3) funds for repairs of major projects, 
such as the UM/Boston dike . He said that the University should 
also be looking to a goal of attaining a better meshing of the 
capital outlay and operating funds budgets. 

A second area of need was funding to allow better 
building utilization. At UM/Boston, said President Knapp, there 
was need to improve clsssroom facilities. The area of the fine 
arts required attention if there was to be continued developement 



B&F and B&i 
9/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of programs in this area. At UM/Amherst several buildings re- 
quired renovations, among them Goodell Hall. The Central Adminis- 
trative Offices building needed maintenance; and there was a need 
to complete the equipping of the University Hospital and the Medi- 
cal School at UM/Worcester . 

President Knapp said he was particularly concerned 
about the visual needs, as well as the practical needs, at UM/ 
Boston. With visitors coming to the Kennedy Library, something 
should be done to enhance the appearance of the campus in the area 
of landscaping. All through the University there was a need to 
replace aging and obsolete equipment, although to a greater 
degree at UM/Amherst. 

New federal regulations with regard to handicapped 
access and new safety codes resulted in another set of problems. 

Trustee Burack said she had been staggered by the size 
of the request for the Medical Center. She wondered whether this 
work could not be phased in. President Knapp said he hoped to 
see progress in the completion of the parking lots. Mr. Bice 
said that there was a real need for additional parking in order to 
handle visitors to the hospital, patients coming to the clinics 
and the growing number of staff for the Hospital and the Medical 
School. In addition, there was a request for money to open 84 
new beds. The additional funds, he said, were for expanding de- 
partments and programs. He said the Medical Center will have one 
of the few "sleep" laboratories in the country. It will also be 
doing a study of senility, which affects 10 percent of people over 
65 years of age. It is believed that many of these people can be 
helped so that they can stay in their own homes rather than having 
to be institutionalized. 

Trustee Burack asked how many beds had been opened in 
the current fiscal year. Mr. Bice replied that the number was 
eighty. Trustee Burack asked if the demand was there. Mr. Hester 
said that the current census in the Hospital was high. The 
capital outlay request was for a year hence, and if the money was 
not requested now, it would be impossible to open the beds. He 
said the Hospital Management Board kept very close tabs on the 
need for beds. Mr. Bice said that new beds were not opened until 
the occupancy rate reached 90 percent. It then took from 30 to 
45 days to build the occupancy rate up again. 



Trustee Crain said he, too, was concerned about the 
need for the entire number of beds. Mr. Bice said there was no 
doubt in his mind that the expenditure was justified. He said 
that the Medical Center could not spend more than $150,000 with- 
out obtaining a certificate of need, and there were unmet needs in 
the Worcester area in such specialties as open heart surgery, 
neurology and psychiatry. 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



I 






I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Crain said that the original plans had been 
based on a different set of conditions with regard to Worcester 
City Hospital, which it now seemed would continue in operation. 

Trustee Dion questioned the size of the request for 
handicapped access at UM/Worcester , which would provide for bath- 
room fixtures, doors and fountains as well as outside changes. 
He was informed that these were not provided at the time the 
hospital was built. Trustee Sawtelle said that he encouraged the 
University's compliance with these requirements as soon as possible 



In response to Trustee Sawtelle 's query, Mr. Bice said 
the number of beds required was based on the number of students, 
residents and programs in operation. He said most of the patient$ 
at the University Hospital came from outside of the city of 
Worcester. He added that earlier in the week the Medical School 
had received approval for an area health education program. 

Trustee Sawtelle asked what the improvements to the 
site entailed. Mr. Burneson replied that construction of road- 
ways, curbing, lighting, sidewalks, shrubbery, signs, new surfac- 
ing on parking lots and construction of a heliport pad were 
included. 

Mr. Stine explained that the state allotted a special 
subsidy to the Bureau of Building Construction for handicapped 
and code compliance, but the University had received only a small 
portion of their request for these monies. Funds were also 
appropriated to the BBC, he said, for other special projects. 
Trustee Dion asked how much the projected cost for handicapped 
access compliance at UM/Amherst would be. Mr. Beatty said the 
amount estimated was $8 million. 



Trustee Crain asked for information with regard to the 
rumor that a dome was proposed for the football stadium. Mr. 
Hester explained that this matter had not come to the President's 
Office as a formal proposal, which was why it had not been 
brought to the attention of the Trustees. Mr. Beatty said that 
it had not come to the administration yet at UM/Amherst. It was 
the proposal of one individual on the campus and it was unfor- 
tunate that it was receiving so much attention in the press. 
Trustee Burack said she felt the Trustees should know of any pro- 
ject of major proportions which was taking staff time before the 
fact since it was the Trustees' right and responsibility to 
determine which projects were appropriate. 

Trustee Burack- asked about the status of the power 
plants at the Amherst Campus. Mr. Meehan said that appropriations 
have been obtained to bring the coal-fired power plant up to the 
clean air standards. Trustee Burack said she was at a loss to 
understand why the new $8 million plant could not be made 
operable. 

With regard to the request for 100 Arlington Street, 
Mr. Hester said that when the proposal for renovating space for 

-3- 



B&" and B&G 
9/27/78 



B&F and 
B&G 

9/27/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the President's Office and the CPCS offices had been submitted, 
a commitment had been made to renovate the entire building for 
continued usage as a- University Center. He recalled that when the 
University had initially made renovations to the building a 
decade ago, it was envisioned as only a temporary home for the 
UM/Boston campus. The University was requesting money in this 
capital outlay budget to renovate two additional floors and some 
public areas. Also, there was a need for maintenance work on the 
exterior of the building — the roof, masonry, etc. Therefore, 
minimum floor renovations were being requested. It was now 
necessary to change the image of the public upon entering the 
building. To do so required work on the lobby and the entrance 
at 250 Stuart Street which work would also accomplish access for 
the handicapped. Mr. Lynton explained that it was hoped that the 
lobby floor could be developed so as to provide active programs, 
to upgrade the art gallery and to serve as a walk- in information 
service for UMass. 

Trustee Crain commended Mr. Meehan, Mr. Prince, and 
their staff for their efforts in supervising the renovations at 
100 Arlington Street. 

On motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve 
the FY 1980 Capital Outlay Budget Requests and 
Submissions as set forth in Trustee Document 
T78-121. 

This concluded the official agenda. However, 
discussion ensued with regard to various projects. 

Trustee Sawtelle said he. was eager to see the buildings 
at UM/Boston named and wondered when this could occur. Chancellor 
Van Ummersen said that the buildings had not yet been accepted by 
the University, pending completion of punch list items by the 
various contractors. It was the consensus of the Trustees that 
it would be most helpful to visitors to the campus if signs could 
be affixed indicating where elevators and buildings were located. 

Mr. Beatty reported briefly on some construction prob- 
lems at UM/Amherst. He said that the Campus Center Garage had 
structural problems. The cement was cracking and it was un- 
certain whether structural steel within the concrete posts met 
minimum standards. The Building Authority was actively working 
on this problem. Also, he said there had been a snag in the plans; 
for the facility to house the buses being provided in connection 
with the University's arrangement with the Pioneer Valley Transit 
Authority to provide bus service to the campus. He said that the i 
town of Hadley had not granted the variance necessary in order for 
the PVTA to build the facility. Originally the PVTA was to 
build the facility and the University was to lease it from them. 
Now, the University would build the facility and lease it to the 
PVTA. Trustee Crain asked why the variance had not been obtained 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



! 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

at an earlier date. Mr. Beatty said he did not know the details. 
Trustee Grain said he felt the Committee on Buildings and Grounds 
would want to follow developments on this matter. 

President Knapp said that he and Mrs. Knapp were 
inviting the Trustees to a reception at their home following the 
October 4th Board meeting. 

There was no further business and the meeting was ad- 
journed at 1:30 p.m. 



B&F and 
B&G 9/27/78 




Dorothy Eichj 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-5- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



! 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 



October 4, 1978; 1:30 p.m. 
Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge 
Convention Hall C/Sixth Floor 
200 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



ATTENDANCE: ! Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp ; 
Trustees Crain, Dennis, Marks, Robertson, and Troy; Treasurer 
Brand, Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Burack and Shearer 

Other Trustees : Trustees Breyer , Kassler, Krumsiek, McNeil, 
McNulty, Morgenthau, Popko and Sawtelle ; Mr. Parks representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Owens representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Barrus 
representing Trustee Winthrop 



I 



I 



Central Administration : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; 
Counsel Searson 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor .Bromery; Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for 
Administration and Finance; Professor Martin, Faculty Representa- 
tive 

UM/Worcester : Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs; 
Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 1:55 p.m. Chairman 
Healey asked the President to comment on the agenda item Study of 
Executive Compensation . President Knapp said that it had not 
been possible to complete the survey in time for discussion at 
this meeting. He asked that the matter be deferred until the 
next meeting of the Board. Also, in light of the fact that the 
collective bargaining process with the faculty and continuing, it 
would be advisable to delay completion of the study until this 
process had been completed. Chairman Healey asked if there were 
any objections to deferring the study. There were none. 

In the matter of Composition of Chancellors' Search 
Committees , UM/Amherst and UM/Boston, President Knapp noted that i 
the Trustees had received a memorandum dealing with this subject.:. 
Based on the campus responses he said he wished to recommend one j 
change in the composition of the Amherst search committee — that it 



Study of 

Executive 

Compensation 



Composition 
of Chancellors 
Search 
Committees, 
UM/Amherst and 
UM/Boston 



i 



Exec. 
10/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

be expanded to include one graduate student. Thus the committees 
would be composed of four faculty representatives, one student 
at Boston, two students at Amherst, an alumni representative, one 
campus administrator, one administrator for the central adminis- 
tration and two Trustees. Nominations for these committees were 
now being received from the campuses. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
a Search Committee for the Chancellor, UM/Boston, 
as outlined in Doc. T78-116 as amended. 



and further 



VOTED 



To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
a Search Committee for the Chancellor, UM/Amherst, 
as outlined in Doc. T78-116 as amended, except that 
one graduate student will also be included on the 
committee. 



Mr. Parks asked President Knapp to spell out minority 
representation on each of the search committees. President Knapp 
said that this would be determined by the recommendations of 
those from whom nominations were being sought. As he had yet to 
receive all of these, he could only say that one representative 
from the central administration to be recommended would be a 
minority person and a female. Mr. Lynton said that there were 
no recommendations from the faculties or the students. He noted 
that one of the reasons eight faculty members for the four slots 
and two students for the student slots was in order to ensure a 
reasonable balance of minority representation. 

Mr. Parks asked if it would be possible for the Board 
to go on record as supporting minority representation on each 
search committee. President Knapp said he was totally in agree- 
ment that there should be minority and female representation 
on each committee. Mr. Parks said that he would like to see the 
Board, as a board, support this position. Chairman Healey said 
that it was his assumption that this was the Board's position; 
however, if it was desired, he would entertain a motion. 

Without further discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That it is the sense of the Board that the 
membership of each Chancellor's search 
committee include both minority and female 
representation. 



I 



I 



~2- 



I 



! 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey then reminded the Trustees of the 
Chair's responsibility to appoint Trustee members to the several 
search committees. There were now eight Trustee positions to be 
filled — two each on the Boston and Amherst search committees and 
four on the ad hoc Trustee oversight committee. The Chairman 
said that he would be most grateful to those Trustees who would 
volunteer. President Knapp concluded the discussion on the 
searches by noting that he had asked Father Walsh, Academic 
Advisor to the President, to serve as chief of staff to the 
Boston and Amherst search committees. Also, advertisements for 
the positions had been published and letters of solicitation had 
been sent out. 

There was no further business to come before the Commit^ 
tee and the meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. 





Dorothy Eioflfiel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



i 



3- 



Exec. 
10/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



■ 



1 



\ 



ATTENDANCE : 



'I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 

October 30, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain, President Knapp; 
Trustee Marks; Mr. Heiney, Assistant Treasurer; Ms. Eichel, 
recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer, Dennis, Krumsiek and 
Winthrop 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hog an, University Controller; Mr. Lehan, Special 
Assistant to the Vice President for Management; Mr. Stine, 
Assistant Vice President 

UM/Boston : Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and 
Finance; Mr. Fenstemacher, Director, Institutional Planning 
and Budgeting 






UM/Worcester : 
Affairs 



Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Cathey, Director of Fiscal 



Invited Guest : Mr. Arthur Parker of Standish, Ayer & Wood, 
Investment Counsel 

The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. by Chair- Report of In- 



man Crain. The first item of agenda was a Report of Investment 
Counsel . Mr. Parker of Standish, Ayer & Wood said that a writter 
report had been circulated to the Committee at the beginning of 
the meeting, which he would summarize orally. Mr. Parker first 
talked about the economy and prospects for 1979, after which he 
spoke about the condition of the stock market. He then turned tc 
the University's portfolio, indicating that the income from the 
endowment had increased from January to October, maintaining the 
purchasing power of the portfolio. He said he did not recommend 
any changes in the portfolio at this time. 

Chairman Crain said that a request from Investment 
Counsel in September to purchase some securities had brought to 
light the need for a Delegation of Investment Authority to the 
Treasurer , the second item of agenda. He said he had talked wit? 
the Chairman of the Board and both had agreed that this would be 
a desirable procedure. Counsel had investigated the matter and 
had determined that such a delegation was within the scope of 



vestment Counsel 



Delegation of 
Investment 
Authority to 
Treasurer 



J 



B&F Comm. 
10/30/78 



Refinements to 
Capital Outlay 
Submission 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



the Board's authority. Mr. Stine called attention to the fact 
that an amendment to the Trustee By-Laws would be required in 
order to make this delegation possible and that a by-law amendment 
required thirty days' notice to members of the Board. Therefore, 
no Board action could occur until the time of the December 
meeting. It was the sense of the meeting that a change in the 
By-laws should be proposed for action by the Board in December. 



Trustee Marks then requested a discussion of the endow- 
ment fund itself. He stated his concern about the limited size 
of the fund and said he saw two problems in regard to the fund; 
the first, that of managing the present fund so as to obtain the 
best possible income; and second, that of the need for concen- 
trated effort to build up the endowment. 



President Knapp informed the Committee that by Decem- 
ber he hoped to have a proposal which would cover the development 
area. He said he felt there was a need to find ways to coordinate 
efforts in the areas of development, alumni affairs, media, etc.l 
so as to build up a base from which money would begin to flow to 
the University. Chairman Crain agreed with President Knapp' s 
view that the image of the University would play an important 
part in the success of this process. 



Since the members present at the meeting did not con- 
stitute a quorum, it was agreed that the Committee would meet 
briefly on the day of the November Board meeting to ratify the 
September 11 purchase of securities, approval of which had been 
received by telephone. 



Chairman Crain then asked Mr. Stine to report on the 
agenda item Refinements to Capital Outlay Submission . Mr. Stine 
said that since the Buildings and Grounds and Budget and Finance 
Committees had met to make recommendations on the Capital Outlay 
Budget for FY 1980, there had been further meetings and develop- 
ments. These did not require Trustee action, but were being 
called to the attention of the Committee. The University had 
subsequently received notification that it would receive from the 
central reserve account of the Commonwealth $275,000 for equipment 
for the Amherst Campus. This was less than the $500,000 requested, 
The Worcester campus, however, received $100,000 of unexpected 
monies from this fund, thereby reducing the campus's request for 
capital outlay by $100,000. The Worcester campus had also 
received $200,000 for energy conservation. UM/ Amherst received 
$160,000 in money for handicapped code compliance. The University 
will also receive $50,000 for an elevator for handicapped persons 
for its 100 Arlington Street building. 

Mr. Stine said it is hoped that next year's central 
fund will include money for the handicapped and for energy con- 
servation at UM/Boston and will also include additional money 
for UM/Amherst. 



-2- 



■ 



■ 



! 



J 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



B&F Comm, 
10/30/78 



Chairman Crain asked next for discussion of Executive 
Compensation . President Knapp said that a number of studies had 
been done on salaries at other institutions and a comparison of 
each of the University's top positons had been made with the dat 
obtained. Considerations not included in the studies were fring 
benefits and the cost of living in the particular area. The 
surveys had included 1200 institutions. The comparison showed 
that in nine out of the thirteen positions studied, the University 
salaries were less than the average salary as indicated by the 
College and University Personnel Association (CUPA) Administratis 
Compensation Survey. With searches underway for several top 
level University officers, it was necessary that the University 
could at least meet the CUPA average. 

Mr. DeNyse added that at the time the Legislature 
stopped the granting of merit raises, the University had been 
competitive. It had since slipped badly, both in salaries and ir 
fringe benefits. 



Trustee Marks said that one of the problems was that 
salaries in the other segments of public higher education were 
too low. However, he said, some campuses provided as an additional 
fringe benefit a house for the President. In order to attract 
good people to the Chancellorships, he said, it would undoubtedly 
be necessary to adjust current compensation schedules upward, 
which would further widen the gap between the top administrators 
and other administrative positions. Therefore, he would rather 
that a study be made and adjustment of the level of compensation 
for all senior executives be effected, rather than simply meeting 
the needs of the current searches. 

Mr. Lynton added that the University is, in addition, 
more restricted in its exemptions from the state salary scale 
than are the other segments of public higher education. This, he 
said, raised a policy issue that might warrant corrective legisla 
tion. 

Further discussion ensued with regard to the spread of 
the salary ranges and the fact that most individuals hired from 
outside the University were employed at a salary above the top of 
the range. It was suggested that some positions could possibly 
be filled adequately by less senior people, but with persons of 
promise, at less than the top of the range. 

It was the sense of the meeting that new salary scales 
and fringe benefits should be developed, based on equity, and 
that the University should then be diligent in attempts to hire 
at the best possible salary. When a schedule had been developed, 
the Committee would consider this matter again and make its 
recommendation to the Board. 



Executive 
Compensation 



-3- 



1 



B&F Comm. 
10/30/78 



UM/ Worcester — 
Salary for Vice 
Chancellor for 
Administration 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chairman Crain asked Chancellor Bulger to speak to the 
last agenda item, the matter of the Salary for the Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance and Hospital Director * Chancellor 
Bulger explained that Mr. Bice was one of the most able young 



■ 



and Finance and Hospital Directors in the country. Because of his special 



Hospital Direc- 
tor 



ability to delegate and keep track of many activities, he was 
able to combine the two positions, where another person might 
not. The proposed increase in salary would be in line with the 
salary of the former Vice Chancellor of Administration and 
Finance. His salary as Hospital Director was somewhat low when 
compared with salaries of other hospital directors. 

Chairman Crain emphasized that because of Mr. Bice's 
unusual ability he was able to combine the two positions, elim- 
inating the need for one of the positions. However, it should 
not be presumed that the second position had not been justified 
when it was established or that it might not be required at some 
future date. It was the sense of the Committee that the proposec 
salary was commensurate with the duties that Mr. Bice was currently 
performing and that the Committee should recommend to the Board 
approval of the proposed salary. 

There being no further business, the meeting was 
adjourned at 12:30 p.m. 




Dorothy Eicwiel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-4- 



■ 



! 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 

November 1, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 
Faculty Conference Room 
Medical Sciences Building 
University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Commi ttee and Committee Staff : Trustee Burack, Acting Chairman; 
Trustees McNulty, Romer and Sawtelle; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Anrig and Dukakis 

Central Administration : Mr. Stine, Assistant Vice President ; Mr. 
Meehan, Consultant 

UM/Amherst: Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance; Mr. Littlefield, Planning Director; Mr. Barrett, 
Assistant Planning Director; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

The meeting was called to order at 10:12 a.m. by 
Trustee Burack, Acting Chairman. At the request of Chairman 
Burack, Mr. Beatty opened discussion on the Bus Maintenance Fa- 
cility — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-122) . He said that several years 



i 



ago the Board had approved the seeking of a grant from the Urban 
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) to expand the bus 
service for the campus and surrounding communities. As part of 
the grant, the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority was to build a 
bus maintenance facility on University-owned land. The land in 
question lies within the township of Hadley, and the town Zoning 
Board of Appeals denied the necessary zoning variance to the 
PVTA. Therefore, in order to build the facility, it is now 
jnecessary for the University to become the owner of the building, 
;since this obviates the need for the zoning variance. The 
University would then lease the facility to the PVTA, other 
conditions remaining essentially the same as under the original 
proposal. 

Chairman Burack asked whether this arrangement increased 
the liability of the Trustees. Mr. Beatty said that it did, but 
that in the twenty-five-year agreement, the limits of liability 
would be spelled out in detail and all possible safeguards would 
be included. The proposed agreement had been reviewed by Univer- 
sity counsel to ensure that adequate protection would be provided. 

In response to a query from Chairman Burack, Trustee 
Romer said that the town of Amherst was in favor of the bus 
facility, since the bus service served the town of Amherst as 
well as the University. Trustee McNulty asked if the University's 
action would create a problem in future relationships with the 



Bus Mainte- 
nance Fa- 
cility— UM/Am- 
herst 
(Doc. T78-122) 



I 



B & G 
11/1/1978 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Town of Hadley. Mr. Lit tie field said that he did not believe it 
would since the decision of the zoning board was not unanimous 
and he felt the townspeople on the whole were not opposed to the 
facility. 

Trustee Kassler asked who would pay the maintenance 
costs for the building. Mr. Beatty replied that the cost would 
3e borne 80 percent by the federal government, 10 percent by the 
state and local governments and 10 percent by the University.. 
Chairman Burack asked who would pay for necessary repairs over 
time. Mr. Beatty said that an operating reserve would be set up 
to cover this type of problem. This money would come from 
student fees for the parking and transportation system. The 
students, he said, had been instrumental in the original concept 
for the system. 

The only problem that was foreseen was that if the 
federal and state governments ceased to fund the system, which 
Was unlikely, then the University would have to reimburse the 
federal government for its share of the cost of constructing the 
facility. The buses were the property of the PTVA, but would be 
operated by the University. Students currently run the bus 
service and serve as drivers. 

Questions arose as to what problems would be encoun- 
tered should various events occur, such as the ceasing of public 
funding, the demise of the PVTA, etc. Should the bus service be 
discontinued for any reason, the University would then be required 
to seek capital outlay money to repay the federal government. 
Should this occur, the University would have a facility which it 
would find most useful for its own fleet of vehicles. The 
Trustees would have the right to terminate the agreement should 
they so desire. 

The urgency for action by the Board was due to the 
fact that the bidder had granted several extensions and would be 
unlikely to grant another. Rebidding would increase the cost 
and delay the facility. 

Questions ensued as to how adequacy of service could 
be ensured, whether a proper ventilation system had been provided 
for the building, whether the flat roof might pose a problem, 
and other issues related to the construction of the building. 

Mr. Stine said the annual operating agreement would 
specify the level of service. Mr. Barrett reported that all 
public safety regulations had been met and that he was satisfied 
that proper safety features had been provided. 

On motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees authorize 
the Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts 



-2- 



■ 



■ 



■ 



■I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

at Amherst, in consultation with the President of 
the University and as described in Trustee Docu- 
ment T78-122, to 

1. Apply for and accept, jointly with the Pioneer 
Valley Transit Authority, an amendment to fed- 
eral grant Ma-03-0052 (Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration of the Federal Department of 
Transportation) providing for funding of the 
construction of a bus maintenance facility, to 
be owned by the University, on University-owned 
land on the Amherst campus; and 

2. Negotiate and execute an agreement with the 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority providing for 
twenty-five years of use of the facility for 
local public mass transit services either by 
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst or, 
if the University ceased to operate such serv- 
ices, by the Pioneer Valley Authority, provided 
that such successor use by the Pioneer Valley 
Transit Authority will be subject to terms and 
conditions set by the University. 

Chairman Burack asked that the record show the Commit- 
tee's concerns. The meeting was then adjourned at 11:00 a.m. 



B & G 
11/1/78 




Dorothy Eich<(]L 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



\ 



-3- 



p 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



■ 



NOT USED 



P 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

November 1, 1978; 11:00 a.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Knapp ; 
Trustees Burack, Crain, Marks, Robertson, Shearer and Troy; Ms. 
Eichel, Assistant Secretary; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustee Dennis 

Other Trustees : Trustees Kassler, Krumsiek, McNeil, McNulty, 
Popko, Romer, Sawtelle, and Tyson; Mr. Callahan representing 
Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis, Mr. Barrus 
representing Trustee Winthrop 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. DeNyse , Acting Vice President for Management; Mr. 
Searson, General Counsel 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery ; Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancel- 
lor for Administration and Finance; Professor Fletcher, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance 

UM/Worcester : Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 11:20 a.m. Chairman 
Healey said the Committee would first deal with two personnel 
matters at UM/Worcester and then go into executive session in 
order to discuss candidates for honorary degrees. The Committee 
would not reconvene in open session. He then recognized the 
President. 



President Knapp said he wished to recommend the appoint- UM/Worcester — 
ment of Professor H. Maurice Goodman as Acting Chancellor of the Appointment of 
UM/Worcester campus and Acting Dean of the Medical School, effec- 
tive November 15, 1978. The President said he was most pleased 
that Dr. Goodman had agreed to serve and noted that he was not a 
candidate for the Chancellorship. The recommendations came with 
general agreement of the Worcester campus. A salary adjustment 
for Dr. Goodman would be recommended at the December meeting of 
the Board. 

President Knapp said that the Chancellor's search was 
making progress. The Search Committee had met on October 27 and 
had narrowed the list of potential candidates. Things were moving 
rapidly and candidates would be asked to come to the campus for 



Professor Good- 
man as Acting 
Chancellor 



Exec. 
11/1/78 



UM/Worcester — 
Personnel Ac- 
tion 
(Doc. T78-123) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

interviews in the very near future. The President concluded by 
noting that Dr. Caper would continue as Vice Chancellor. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : 



Upon the recommendation of the President, to recom- 
mend the appointment of H. Maurice Goodman as Acting 
Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at 
Worcester and Acting Dean of the Medical School at 
UM/Worcester effective November 15, 1978. 



and further 



VOTED : To recomend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
Personnel Action as set forth in Trustee Document 
T78-123. 

President Knapp said the next item to be dealt with 
concerned the salary of Mr. Bice as Vice Chancellor for Adminis- 
tration and Finance and as Hospital Director. This matter had 
come before the Board previously, at which time it had been 
agreed that the Committee on Budget and Finance would review it 
before the Board acted. 

Trustee Crain said that he had asked that the Budget 
and Finance Committee review this matter at the request of two 
Trustees. At the October 30 meeting the Committee had reviewed 
the matter thoroughly. The documentation supplied to the Trustee 
showed that the position was like those of directors of other 
hospitals in the New England region. The documentation also re- 
vealed that while the suggested salary was higher than the state 
maximum, it was less than the average for comparable institutions 
in the region. The salary proposed was also seen as being con- 
sistent with the demands and duties of the job, and was not, as 
was feared, an adjustment based on a position title which had no 
responsibilities . 

Trustee Crain said that he had become convinced that 
there was real work to be done and that the responsibilities de- 
lineated for Mr. Bice, in combining the functions of the Vice 
Chancellor for Administration and Finance and those of Hospital 
Director, would be compensated for at less than the regional 
average. It was the consensus of the Committee that the proposed 
salary was fair and equitable. 

Trustee Kassler asked if the title for the position, 
which appeared to combine the two titles, carried with it the 
implicit understanding that one of the positions as a separate 
position would be eliminated from the organizational chart, and 
therefore would not be filled. Trustee Crain said that this was 
the case; the second position would be eliminated. 



-2- 



> 



f 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Crain said that all indications were that Mr. 
Bice was an unusually talented person and it would not be correct 
to say that in the future there would never again be a second 
position, but for the present the second position was eliminated. 



Exec. 
11/1/78 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED ; To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the UM/Worcester — 
Personnel Action as set forth in Trustee Document Personnel Ac- 
T78-106. tion 

(Doc. T78-106) 
Chairman Healey then called for a motion to enter execu- 
tive session in order to discuss honorary degrees. He noted that 
the Committee would not reconvene in open session. 



At 11:30 a.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

Trustees Burack, Crain, Marks, Robertson, Shearer and 
Troy voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey and President 
Knapp . Trustee Dennis was absent. 

At 12:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session and to adjourn the meet 
ing. 



Executive 
Session 



!&*^Cly&~L^ 



Dorothy Eichel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



-3- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



' 



NOT USED 



■ 



■ 



I 

i 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 



November 1, 1978; 1:45 p.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

Medical Sciences Building 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain, President Knapp 
Trustees Krumsiek and Marks; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer and Dennis 

The Committee met briefly just preceding the meeting 
of the Board of Trustees to ratify a vote taken by telephone on 
September 11, 1978. 

On motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To ratify the action of the Acting Treasurer, 

Robert H. Brand, in purchasing $50,000 of U. S. 
Treasury Notes 7-1/4 2/15/84 as recommended by 
Standish, Ayer & Wood, Inc. 



Dorothy Eichqju. 

Assistant Secretary to the Board 
of Trustees 



NOTE: A confirmed copy of the telephone vote is attached. 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



f 



NOT USED 



• 



' 



VOTE OF MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE AS OBTAINED 
BY TELEPHONE POLL ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1978, MADE BY ROBERT H. BRAND, 
ACTING TREASURER 



VOTED : To authorize the Acting Treasurer, Robert H. Brand to 
purchase $50,000 of U. S. Treasury Notes 7% 2/15/84 
as recommended by Standish, Ayer § Wood, Inc. 



Confirmed by Committee members on September 13, 1978, as follows 



TRUSTEE 
Crain, J. F. 
Dennis, D. 
Marks, P. G. 
Krumsiek, J. B. 
Knapp, D. C. 



SIGNATURE OF TRUSTEE VOTING AFFIRMATIVELY 




vrr / ; 




Trustees Breyer, Dion and Winthrop were not present at the meeting 
of September 6, 1978, and were not polled by the Treasurer. 



I 



f 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
LONG-RANGE PLANNING 



November 8, 1978; 10:00 a.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff: 



Chairman Marks, President 



Knapp; Trustees 0' Sullivan, Popko and Troy; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees Kassler, Robertson and 
Sawtelle 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs 

UM/Eoston : Chancellor Van Ummersen, Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancel- 
lor for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Fenstemacher, Director, 
Office of Institutional Planning and Budgeting; Professor 
Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor 
for Health Affairs; Mr. Bice, Vice Chancellor for Administra- 
tion and Finance and Hospital Director; Mr. Goodman, Deputy 
Dean; Mr. Kelly, Associate Dean for Allied Health; Mr. Smith, 
Provost; Mr. Thompson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Community 
Relations , Planning and Development 

The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. The first 
item discussed was Long-Range Planning Report — UM/Boston. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the campus had for the 
first time stressed two aspects of the planning process. 
Firstly, the planning was recognized as a continuing process, 
in which any plan developed and agreed upon would be subject to 
change. Secondly, the campus, in developing the plan had faced 
the fact that resources were limited and would continue to be 
limited, and that planning based on unlimited resources was 
unacceptable. Decisions had been made as to what could be 
included and what would have to be left out. This, the Chancel- 
lor continued, had been the most difficult part of the process. 

During the planning process a number of questions had 
arisen which the colleges themselves had to address. For this 
reason each college had established a Long-Range Planning 
Committee. These committees were working on problems that were 
peculiar to each college. The College of Arts and Sciences, 
for example, was struggling with the problem of how to institute 



UM/Boston— 
Long-Range 
Planning Re- 
port 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



planned new programs out of its own resources. There had been 
some reallocations within the college, and in the next fiscal 
year it was faced with the possible loss of resources because 
of the growth of the other two colleges. 

In the College of Professional Studies and the College of 
Public and Community Service, questions regarding the pace and 
the kind of growth were now being addressed. There was a very 
real question as to whether CPCS had saturated its present 
market. The enrollment figures for the college indicated that 
the applicant pool was not continuing to expand. For this 
reason the College had been asked to consider the possible need 
for new programs or whether modification of the present program 
to serve a new clientele would increase the size of the applicant 
pool. 

In the CPS, Chancellor Van Ummersen continued, the ques- 
tions related to the possible expansion of the Management 
Program and to how quickly the college could absorb additional 
students. The Chancellor concluded by noting that the campus 
plan was designed to give an overview of the University as a 
whole and deliberately left certain problems to be dealt with 
by the individual colleges. 

Trustee Troy said he was somewhat puzzled by certain 
statements in the material from the campus. It was stated that 
the basic growth of the campus would occur in CPCS and CPS, 
with CPCS expecting modest growth and CPS a far larger one. 
Also there were indications that resources were being transfer- 
red from CAS to the other two colleges. He asked if these 
transfers would affect the quality of the CAS program. For 
example, would class sizes increase? He was concerned, particu- 
larly in light of the fact that students from CPS did most of 
their sophomore and junior work in courses taught by CAS 
faculty. Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the quality of the 
CAS program would not be affected. Enrollment was dropping at 
CAS, even when one factored in the students from CPS. Chancel- 
lor Van Ummersen said the falling enrollment at CAS meant that 
two things would have to happen. First, the College would have 
to seriously examine and make changes in its program in order 
to attract students. In some areas this was already happening. 
For example, the Department of Mathematics was now putting in 
place a computer science track. The second thing was that 
there would have to be a greater articulation of academic 
programs with the community and junior colleges. 

In response to Trustee Troy's question regarding the 
seriousness of the drop in enrollment in CAS, Chancellor Van 
Ummersen said that the College was funded for 6,000 students. 
Present FTE enrollment was about 5,500 and this included the 
CPS component. 



-2- 



' 



i 



■ 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Speaking of the matter of class sizes, Mr. Lynton 
said that CAS was now examining classes with small enrollments, 
particularly those at the advanced level. There was evidence 
that, in many fields, there were too many different courses 
taught at any given time. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that there was also 
a problem with the introductory classes in the social sciences. 
Many of these enrolled only 25 or 30 students. At many univer- 
sities, such classes were taught in groups of one or two 
hundred. The Boston Campus used a large amount of faculty 
resources in this way. Trustee Troy asked if the effort to 
increase the size of the classes was in conflict with the 
original concept at the Boston Campus that classes should be 
small, partly because of the kind of students who enrolled. 
Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the establishment of academic 
support programs and the adjunct courses designed to improve 
academic skills which had been added to introductory courses 
had made small classes less important than they were five years 
ago. The small classes were very wasteful in terms of faculty 
resources. In 1976/77 the campus offered 30 sections of the 
Introductory Course in Anthropology. If these were combined 
into 10 sections, it would greatly decrease the demand for 
faculty time. 

Professor Martin, referring to the transfer of 
positions out of CAS, said this was realistic because of the 
reduced enrollment in the college. It was his hope that the 
college could increase its enrollment and that new resources 
would be found. 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



I 



Trustee Popko said that it had been stated that 
the resources in CAS matched the demand. She asked if this 
were true of the other two colleges. Chancellor Van Ummersen 
said that the campus was attempting to make this so. As part 
of this effort, both CPS and CPCS had been asked to provide 
information concerning faculty activities other than direct 
classroom instruction. In CPCS, for example, there was a large 
assessment program which entailed an unknown amount of faculty 
time. Basically, this was an effort to determine faculty 
workloads in order to determine if the costs of the two colleges 
were reasonably equivalent. 

Trustee Troy asked for elaboration on the statement 
that the growth of CPCS may have reached its limits. Chancellor 
Van Ummersen said that given the specific programs the College 
now offered, and the particular clientele the College had 
chosen to serve — the admissions criteria were rigid in the 
sense that the College enrolled stated percentages of certain 
types of students and insisted that all of them have a good 
deal of experience either in community activities or in social 
service agencies — the available data indicated that this market 
was just about saturated. The College would have to consider 



-3- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



adding additional programs or modifying those presently offered 
in order to increase the pool of potential applicants. For 
example, numerous requests were received from students just out 
of high school. At present such students were inadmissible 
because they lacked the requisite experience. Asked about the 
likelihood of the College changing, Chancellor Van Ummersen 
said that with the coming of a new dean prospects were good. 

Chairman Marks said that the documentation showed 
that the campus was being realistic in its enrollment goals. 
It was not seeking massive breakthroughs, but only modest 
percentage increases. He asked how these modest increases were 
to be achieved. For example, would the students be transfers 
from the community colleges? Chancellor Van Ummersen said that 
in order to attract community college students, the campus 
would have to do a better job at the program level. In the 
past, in dealing with such students, the campus had, in effect, 
said that they were more than welcome, but few efforts were 
made to meet their needs. In many cases, they do not receive 
full credit for all the courses taken at community colleges. 
This is a serious matter which has to be addressed. The 
University has to make the transfer at least as inviting as do 
other institutions, and the University and the community 
colleges would have to find some way of meshing their programs. 

Chairman Marks said that in working this out the 
campus would have to be aware of competition from the state 
colleges , which also had vigorous programs to attract what they 
saw as their fair share of transfer students. He was still 
curious about what mechanism the University was using. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that things were happen- 
ing at a number of levels. Mr. Hartnagle, Dean of Admissions, 
had held a number of meetings with the counseling staffs of the 
community colleges, including some held at the Harbor Campus. 
Also, chairmen of academic departments at Boston had met and 
would continue to meet with their counterparts from the commun- 
ity colleges. 

Mr. Steamer said that he felt the recruiting effort 
was reasonably adequate. The major problem was not recruiting; 
last year's entering class totalled 2,400 students, one of the 
largest the University had ever had. The reason the enrollment 
was dropping was the attrition rate, 30 percent of the students 
dropped out within a year, 50 percent did not graduate. Chair- 
man Marks said this was still a recruiting problem. If the 
University knew that the students would drop out at a certain 
rate, then more students would have to be admitted. Mr. 
Steamer agreed. He felt, however, that it would be almost 
impossible to recruit the number of students needed to compen- 
sate for those who dropped out. 

In response to Trustee Troy's question, Mr. Fenstemache 
said that there were about 400 veterans presently enrolled at 

-4- 



I 



r 



■ 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Boston, but that government benefits for veterans were terminat- 
ing. Speaking of transfers, Mr. Fenstemacher said that the 
admissions office had introduced a personalized admissions 
service. This service made it possible for a transfer applicant 
to apply for admission, receive an evaluation of previous work 
and statement of how many credit hours were acceptable, and be 
admitted all on the same day. 

Mr. Steamer said another factor in the enrollment 
situation was that UM/Boston had the smallest percentage of 
part-time students of any urban institution. As part of the 
effort to alleviate this, the campus now permitted students to 
take up two courses without going through the admissions 
process. Such students, who had done well and who wanted to 
take more courses , then went through the normal admissions 
procedures to be matriculated and were given credit for the 
courses taken prior to matriculation. 

Mr. Lynton said that in attempting to increase the 
number of transfer students, the focus had to be on articulation. 
There had to be faculty/faculty cooperation between the Boston 
campus and the community and junior colleges. The engineering 
faculty at Amherst, for example, had an ongoing relationship 
with community college engineering faculties. This allowed 
students at the community colleges, who were trying to decide 
where to continue their studies, the opportunity to discuss 
their plans at a level other than that of the recruiter/guidance 
counselor. 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



I 



In the matter of attrition, Mr. Lynton continued, 
while the rate at Boston might be somewhat higher than at other 
institutions, it was a common condition, particularly at urban 
and community schools. Students dropped out for a variety of 
reasons; some would reappear later. Attrition rates like those 
at Boston were, in fact, very common. 

President Knapp said that he found the documentation 
supplied by the campus to be very good; however, there were 
several things he found bothersome. These things were probably 
rooted in the history of UM/Boston. For example, there was a 
focus on current problems and a tendency to worry about short 
term trends. While these problems and trends were important, 
addressing them did little to prepare the campus for the 
future. Part of the problem was that the institution was a 
comprehensive university center, the nature of which had yet to 
be clearly defined. This in turn contributed to the problem of 
finding a proper balance between professional studies and the 
arts and sciences, and the uncertanties concerning undergraduate 
and graduate education. 

President Knapp said he also noted a lack of a sense 
that Boston was, or should be, a university center which served 
the community and the state in a broad fashion. For example, 
were there faculty members who had a high level of expertise in 
dealing with urban problems? The President said it was disturb- 



-5- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



ing to see people going to Boston University, Harvard, or 
to. I.T. for help in solving such problems. UM/Boston should 
also be seen as such a resource. This was part of being a 
comprehensive university center. 

Another area of concern was that of linkages with 
other institutions. This applied not only to institutions in 
the metropolitan area but also between the Boston and Amherst 
campuses. 

The documentation supplied described UM/Boston in 
isolation, President Knapp continued, yet in discussing increased 
enrollment, the kinds of students seen as potential applicants 
were the same as those all other institutions were seeking to 
recruit. This competition would have to be taken into account. 

President Knapp said the long-range plan presented to 
the Committee laid out the steps needed to be taken in order to 
increase enrollment and the questions which should be addressed, 
however, there was need for an operational sequence. In other 
words, what actions need to be taken and in what order? This 
impinged on programs as well as on recruitment. There were 
many interlocking things that would have to be worked out. 

President Knapp said that the thing that bothered him 
most about UM/Boston was the very low self-esteem that was 
evident throughout the campus. This was a matter that was all 
but impossible to deal with in a long-range plan. Part of the 
problem stemmed from the lack of definition of the role of the 
campus. The President noted that an accrediting team had 
recently visited the campus and had remarked on the low self- 
image they found. The team also stated that they could not 
understand why this was so. They found UM/Boston to be a 
rather impressive place with a number of substantial undertakings 
The self-image had to be improved. Until such time as this 
happened, it would permeate everything the campus did. 

Chairman Marks said he too had found that in dealing 
with planning matters at Boston there were many matters that 
interlocked. Whether discussing admissions or course offerings, 
one found oneself discussing a number of interrelated matters, 
when he first became concerned with UM/Boston, he had been 
struck with the campus's limited perception of what it was 
&oing to be. Perhaps as a result of shifting goals and inatten- 
tion on the part of the Board, the President's Office and the 
campus itself, there had been a great lowering of expectations 
followed by a lingering malaise. The elimination of this 
malaise was as critical as any of the more specific steps that 
might be taken. About a year ago the Board had informed 
UM/Boston of its concern and of its intent to do whatever was 
possible to transform the self-image of the campus. 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Troy said he agreed entirely with everything President 
Knapp had said; however, there were, in addition, some smaller 
things needed. UM/Boston was a commuter campus and as such the 
problem of generating a "college life" was a difficult one. 
Many of the amenities that students could enjoy at Amherst, 
such as a student union or an athletics program, simply weren't 
available at Boston. The lack of many things that went into 
the usual makeup of an American college almost certainly had an 
effect on the self-image of Boston. 

Chairman Marks said he was not sure these things were 
small. Another thing that some might consider small, but 
probably was not, was the matter of the buildings' being 
numbered rather than named. Naming the buildings would be an 
action which the Board would be very pleased to take. It would 
be a considerable step towards humanizing the campus. President 
Knapp said this matter was now under consideration. 

Another factor in this matter, President Knapp 
continued, was that the design structure of the campus tended 
to hide people, which contributed to the harsh appearance of 
the campus. While there might be many people and activities on 
campus at any given time, to the casual observer the place 
could look deserted. 

Trustee Troy said it might be of interest to note 
that he had recently toured the Harbor Campus Library. Leaving 
aside the need for more books , he said he had found the Library 
to be so much more attractive than the Tower Library at Amherst 
that it was impossible to compare the two. Trustee Troy said 
that it was his understanding that despite the attractiveness 
of the place, it was underused not only in terms of book 
circulation but also as a study area. 

President Knapp said another matter to keep in mind 
was the rehabilitation of the Columbia Point housing units. In 
discussing this with city planners, he said he had urged them 
to consider the possibility of units which would appeal to 
younger tenants as well as older ones. This suggestion went 
against the accepted wisdom of segregating the two groups, but 
it had been done elsewhere and it had worked. If this were 
done at Columbia Point, it would eliminate the need for dormi- 
tories and yet allow students to live next to the campus. This 
would fill another campus need. 

Chairman Marks then asked the President to elaborate 
on his plan to hold a series of meetings with campus represen- 
tatives over the next four months. President Knapp said these 
meetings, involving representatives from the Central Adminis- 
tration and the Campus Administration and Faculty, would put 
together a statement which would attempt to draw a central 
focus out of the campus long-range plan and to define more 
precisely what constituted a comprehensive university center. 
The data needed for the task was in the campus Long-Range 
Planning Reports. 



L-RP Comm, 
11/8/78 



-7- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UM/Worcester — 
Status Reports 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



When the statement was available, President Knapp 
continued, then operational matters such as priorities and 
dates would be addressed. A program was necessary. Chairman 
harks asked how the campus and college long-range planning 
committees would be involved. President Knapp said it was his 
hope that the Chairman of the Campus Committee would sit in 
with the group. Professor Martin said that he was concerned 
that the faculty and the students not be left out of the 
process. However, if the Chairman of the Campus Long-Range 
Planning Committee were privy to the activities and discussions 
of the group, this would eliminate his concern. 

President Knapp said that there was a great deal of 
activity going on and this had to be crystallized. He said 
that the message coming from the campus was that somebody was 
going to have to make decisions sometime. If these decisions 
were not made, everyone would be left with a sense of despair. 
Trustee Troy said that those in despair would include the 
Trustees. Professor Martin said that if the matter was left 
completely to University governance or to Faculty bodies, there 
would be endless debate and very little action. Trustee Popko 
said that if a master plan were laid out and if even a few 
short-term goals were achieved, this would have a very positive 
effect on the campus's self-image. 

Trustee 0' Sullivan, noted that he had served on the 
campus Long-Range Planning Committee, and while so doing had 
developed a tremendous respect for Professor Martin and the 
other members of the Committee. He asked that the Minutes show 
that the Committee had done a first rate job. 

Chairman Marks thanked the UM/Boston representatives 
for their report and presentation. He then called for discus- 
sion on Status Reports — UM/ Worcester. 

Chancellor Bulger said that he would first discuss 
some of the high points of the issues that the University would 
be facing and then discuss the various documents that the 
Committee had received. 



I. 



k 



Chancellor Bulger said that he had listened with in- 
terest to the discussion about UM/Boston' s self-image problem. 
UM/Worcester had once had the same problem. The staff and 
students saw the Medical Center as an embattled institution 
with many outsiders saying that the place should be closed 
down. There was now a growing sense that the Medical Center 
was doing well and would continue to do so. This was not to 
say that the Center did not have problems. 

Three positive things had happened to the Medical 
Center in September, Chancellor Bulger continued. First, in 
that month the Center had received more outside support for 
research than it had received during all of 1975. This figure 



r 



-8- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

may have been somewhat skewed because September was the end of 
the fiscal year for Federal granting agencies; however, given 
the highly competitive field for Federal research dollars, the 
Medical Center's performance was remarkable. 

Secondly, in September Worcester had received one of 
three state-wide Area Health Education Center Grants awarded by 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. These grants 
and their purpose had been described to the Trustees at the 
August meeting of the Board. One result of the AHEC Grant would 
be to help establish the Medical Center as a focal point for de- 
veloping a state-wide network which would be both service- 
oriented and educational. 

The third thing of note, Chancellor Bulger said, was 
the receipt of the quarterly report of the Patient Advocate. 
The report was based on a detailed questionnaire which patients 
in the Hospital had been asked to complete. It showed that 90 
percent of the patients felt that, not only was the care pro- 
vided by the nurses and other paramedical personnel excellent, 
the doctors also were telling them what they needed to know. 
The latter was a most unusual response. The Teaching Hospital 
was a high technology institution and as such had the potential 
of making patients feel as if they were caught up in a Kafkaesque 
world. That most of the patients found themselves in a humane 
setting was a major accomplishment. 

One possible factor explaining this favorable state 
could be found by looking at other medical schools developed in 
the last fifteen years, particularly those which were founded in 
response to immediate social pressures. Many were experiments 
which were now beginning to falter. This was because they were 
based solely on the community; they relied on a kind of appren- 
tice training and, in effect, withdrew from a very strong science 
base and high technology. The University Teaching Hospital, on 
the other hand, had the science base and the technology, and 
superimposed on this was a sense of social responsibility ex- 
pressed through the outreach programs and the emphasis on train- 
ing primary care physicians. This very unusual combination 
could explain the Hospital's success. 

Chancellor Bulger said he had one other general comment 
to offer. Twenty years ago a wholly owned university hospital 
was conceived of and developed as a research outlet for the 
clinical faculty and as a place to teach medical students. In 
their mission statements, these hospitals totally ignored com- 
munity needs. This had changed. Now, when devising a mission 
for a teaching hospital, one had to address the matter of com- 
munity and statewide needs as well as those of research and 
physician training. For this reason the Trustees would be faced 
with questions such as the need for a program in rehabilitative 
medicine within the Commonwealth. The University and the 
Trustees in considering the future would have to be flexible. 



•9- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



L-RP Coram, 
11/8/78 



UM/ Worcester — 
One- and Five- 
Year Plan 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Another fundamental question, Chancellor Bulger said, 
was that of defining what the Medical Center was to be. The 
original concept was that there would be a large campus which 
would have a multiplicity of professional schools and would in- 
clude an undergraduate component. Now the Center contained a 
Medical School and a Teaching Hospital and included a series of 
allied health educational programs. The programs utilized the 
Teaching Hospital, as appropriate, but also utilized the facili- 
ties and resources of other institutions. This was leading to 
the development of consortiums with both private and public in- 
stitutions at many levels. 

Thus, the question really was whether to maintain the 
Medical School and limit all other activities, or to develop the 
campus into what would more properly be called a Health Science 
Center. If the latter, as probably was the case already, what 
then would happen? For example, would there be a division of 
Allied Health Sciences? Would there be an attempt to absorb or 
create other schools? How would the Trustees respond when the 
Legislature mandated that there was to be a public school of 
optometry? 

There was a whole series of issues which would have to 
be addressed, some of which were already on the table. An ex- 
ample was the issue of Nursing. With the demise of the graduate 
program at Amherst, the state would be without any advanced de- 
gree programs for nurses. Worcester did play a role in the 
undergraduate education of nurses and it could be argued that it 
should consider a graduate program at least in the medical and 
surgical areas of specialization. 

Trustee Troy said it had always been his impression 
that most graduate education for nurses was in the field of ad- 
ministration . Chancellor Bulger said that nurses seeking ad- 
vanced degrees usually followed one of four paths — in addition 
to administration, there were also specializations in medical/ 
surgical techniques, in microbiology and biochemistry, and in 
some of the behavioral sciences. Chancellor Bulger concluded 
his remarks by noting that in addition to the already mentioned 
school of optometry, there were other programs and proposals 
that might come before the Trustees. These included a public 
health program, some involvement in podiatry, and a joint pro- 
gram with Worcester Polytechnic in biomedical computing. 

Chairman Marks then asked Mr. Bice to comment on the 
Teaching Hospital's One- and Five-Year Plan . 

Mr. Bice said that the document now before the Commit- 
tee was a second version of the One- and Five-Year Plan which 
had been discussed at the June 14, 1978, meeting of the Commit- 
tee. Of the 190 pages in the document, 160 were in conformance 
with the Department of Public Health's regulatory requirements. 
Because of the need to conform to the Department's format, the 



10- 



r 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

plan, massive as it was, did not always clearly indicate what 
was happening at the Hospital and where it was going. Also, 
while there were linkages between the Hospital, the Medical 
School and the Group Practice, the document was not a five-year 
plan for the Medical Center. 

Mr. Bice said that it should be noted that there was no 
such thing as an excellent medical school without an excellent 
teaching hospital and vice versa. For this reason, it was es- 
sential that the Teaching Hospital have the ability to recruit 
and retain first-rate clinicians. As was known, the Worcester 
area was not one where there was a rapid population growth or an 
undersupply of hospitals or physicians. This could adversely af- 
fect the ability to recruit and retain clinicians. However, the 
existence of the Medical School could counterbalance this. 

These factors, Mr. Bice continued, meant that the Hos- 
pital Administration had the responsibility to recover the in- 
vestment which had been made in the Medical School and to do it 
in such a way as to minimize the impact on the community. 

Mr. Bice said this was a marketing task and that the 
Hospital devoted a good deal of time to it. Questions such as 
the provenance of the patients and factual data about them were 
continually addressed. The Medical Center's emphasis on continu- 
ing education had had an impact on the marketing task. A recent 
study made by the Department of Medicine showed that almost all 
of the patient referrals from outside hospitals, for a six month 
period, came from hospitals where the Medical Center had continu 
ing medical education programs, or from physicians who had par- 
ticipated in the programs. 

Mr. Bice said that as the Hospital grew, its place with- 
in the University would have to be continually redefined. Pro- 
jections indicated that within ten years the Hospital would be 
larger, in financial terms, than any other entity within the Uni- 
versity. Further complicating factors were that the Hospital, 
unlike most other segments of the University, provided direct 
and tangible services and that it was financed in a totally dif- 
ferent fashion. 

Mr. Bice said there were some very real problems in 
terms of how the Hospital was paid for its services. It would be 
possible for the Hospital to recover, mainly through various in- 
surance plans, money that was now provided by the State, but 
there was a possibility that this would have an untoward affect 
on the University's trust funds and this would have to be dis- 
cussed. 

In the matter of bringing the Hospital to full capacity. 
Mr. Bice said that present plans called for this to happen in 
1981. However, this might be delayed until 1982. The latter 
date would be advantageous in terms of integrating the Hospital 
into the community, but might also entail disadvantages in that 
the Teaching Hospital would be the only entity in the public 
higher education sector that would be continuing to grow, and 



-11- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



L-RP Comm. 
1/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

thus could become a focal point and, as such, a matter of con- 
cern. Because of the caliber of the faculty, the Hospital was 
now operating at 90 percent of capacity. The volume of services , 
particularly ambulatory services, far exceeded expectations for 
the year. This created problems of the community's perception 
of what the Hospital was and created difficulties in terms of 
linkages among the Medical School, the Group Practice and the 
Hospital. It impinged on academic excellence because the time 
devoted to patient care lessened the emphasis on research. In 
turn, this raised questions about tenure and probationary ap- 
pointments . 

There was evidence, Mr. Bice continued, that the Hospi- 
tal's impact on the community would peak within two years, by 
which time it would be seen as part of the community. There 
were two ways of looking at this stage of development. One was 
a source of concern — that the Hospital would be accused of dis- 
rupting established relationships and would be seen as a compe- 
titor. The other, a more positive aspect, was that the Hospital 
would be seen as a catalyst in matters such as the community hos- 
pitals' and the Teaching Hospital's dealing with the problem of 
health care costs. 

Finally, Mr. Bice said, in the matter of becoming inte- 
grated in the community, the Teaching Hospital had for some time 
been a member of an informal Worcester hospital consortium. The 
consortium, after a great deal of effort, was at the point of bey 
coming a formal entity and would, in certain ways, speak for all 
hospitals in the consortium. In the matter of the relationship 
with the Worcester City Hospital, a committee of representatives! 
from the Teaching Hospital and the City Hospital would soon be 
formed in order to explore ways in which the two institutions 
could cooperate effectively. 

Chairman Marks said that at the June 14 meeting, the 
Committee, in recommending approval of the previous One- and 
Five-Year Plan, had also made a distinction between the legal re- 
quirements of the plan and the meshing of the contents of that 
plan with the campus long-range plan. Chairman Marks said that 
it seemed that once again the Trustees were being asked to rec- 
ommend approval of a plan which did not satisfy the needs of the 
Committee. Mr. Lynton said that the One- and Five-Year Plan was 
just one part of a comprehensive plan which would be presented 
to the Committee in the spring of 1979. In recommending approval 
of the plan now at hand, the Committee would be asking the Board 
to approve submission of a report which satisfied certain regu- 
latory requirements but which did not contain, for example, plans 
for any specific programmatic developments. 



I 



f 



onded and 
VOTED 



[here was no further discussion and it was moved, see- 
To recommend that the Board approve the One- and 
Five-Year Plan for the University Hospital, UM/Worces 
ter, as detailed in Doc. T78-124 for submission to 
the appropriate agencies. 



-12- 



r 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chairman Marks then called for discussion on Non- 
Physician Health Professions Education at UMMC . Trustee Troy 
said he had been impressed by the remarks of both Dr. Hogness 
and President Knapp regarding the possible dangers of the 
Center's moving too fast in too many directions. Trustee Troy 
said that this was a constant concern of his and that there 
seemed to be too much initiative and movement. The Center was 
only nine years old, and the developments in those years had 
been amazing. It would be deplorable to see the quality of the 
institution frittered away by attempting to do too many things. 
In the material supplied to the Committee and in the discussion 
there had been mention of a new high level position in the 
Medical School, the forced assimilation of a School of Optometry, 
some involvement in podiatry, the critical matter of nursing 
education and the matter of the Center's resources. He con- 
cluded by expressing the hope that the University and the 
Trustees would be able to say "no" to at least some things. 

President Knapp said he agreed with this position. 
There were two problems to be addressed. The first was that of 
"gift horses," such as a school of optometry, which frequently 
turned out to be somewhat undesirable gifts. The second 
problem was that of UM/Worcester's becoming a health sciences 
center. This was perhaps inevitable. However, the question of 
timing had to be addressed. The President said he would like 
to see both the Teaching Hospital and the Medical School on a 
solid basis and then consider the expansion of services. 

One related issue, President Knapp continued, was 
that of the Medical School's emphasis on primary care and the 
Teaching Hospital's emphasis on specialization. It could be 
argued that this would inevitably lead to tension between the 
two. This also tied into the statewide mission of the Medical 
Center and the seeming incongruity of the Hospital's providing 
specialized care and the School's training primary care physi- 
cians . 

Chancellor Bulger said that this was a paradoxical 
situation. There were many who assumed that you could not 
expect specialists such as neurosurgeons to teach other than 
their specialty. In other words they could not be asked to 
teach primary care. In interviewing candidates for faculty 
positions at the Medical School, the candidates were told that 
they would not be able to replicate themselves in large numbers. 
Most candidates accepted this condition with relief. Those who 
had had experience in specialized teaching hospitals had found 
that the replicates frequently set up competitive arrangements 
in near-by hospitals. The end result of this was that the 
tertiary care teaching hosptal no longer had a monopoly in the 
specialty. This was a nation-wide problem and was of such 
severity that there was a ban on establishing new specialty 
residency programs in fields such as neurosurgery and ophthal- 



-13- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UM/Worcester — 
Non-Physician 
Health Profes- 
sions Education 
at UMMC 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

mology. Trustee Troy said that Dr. Soutter, first Chancellor 
of the Worcester campus, had written that all general practi- 
tioners had to have contact with the first-rate specialists in 
order to know the range of the specialist's capabilities as 
well as the limits of those of general practitioners. Mr. 
Lynton said the situation at the Medical School was similar to 
that at Amherst, that is, how does one get research scholars to 
teach other than future replicates of themselves? 

President Knapp said that another issue was whether 
the faculty saw itself as part of a medical center which 
focused on the state and its needs, or if it was beginning to 
become restless with that relatively narrow focus and wished to 
see itself as part of an effort which was nation-wide in 
scope. The President said he raised this issue partly because a 
friend of his had pointed out that Worcester had a splendid 
opportunity to enter into life-long learning contracts with its 
graduates. He asked if there were signs that this restlessness 
was developing and if the Center had considered the matter of 
some form of long-term contract with its graduates. 

Chancellor Bulger said the faculty had discussed a 
proposal that every graduate be put on the roll of the clinical 
department in which he or she had gotten specialty qualifica- 
tions. However, the discussions had been very preliminary. 
Speaking of the matter of the feeling of the faculty, Mr. 
Goodman said that while the faculty was a relatively small 
group with a narrow range of interests, it was not a homogeneous 
group. In dealing with the faculty, one found a total spectrum 
of attitudes. This was a healthy sign. There were people who 
were traditionalists in the sense that they wanted to develop a 
school very similar to that at Harvard, and there were those 
who had quite different attitudes. Despite these differences 
the faculty interacted in a satisfactory manner. 

Another important factor, Dr. Caper said, was that 
the clinicians were funded by the State and this, in a way, 
freed them from the need to seek grant monies to support 
themselves. In private medical schools most of the clinicians' 
salaries was derived from two sources — either research grants 
or practice funds. In such situations the clinicians spent a 
great deal of time seeking research grants. This made it 
difficult for the dean or the administration to redirect the 
efforts of the clinicians in ways that might be more beneficial 
for the school as a whole. 



y 



Trustee Troy asked how the School handled promotions 
of tenure. Mr. Goodman said that the procedures followed were 
those set forth in the Academic Personnel Policy of the Univer- 
sity (Doc. T76-081). This sometimes created difficulties, 
particularly for the clinical faculty, many of whom spent the 



P 



-14- 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

bulk of their time in opening the Teaching Hospital, doing 
clinical work and teaching. Thus, they had no time to do 
research. For this reason, the Medical School was considering 
that the section on Special Academic Appointments in the 
Academic Personnel Policy be modified so that the School could 
develop a separate non-tenured track with long-term contracts. 
This arrangement would accommodate faculty who devoted their 
time to teaching and service rather than to scholarship. This 
was a typical arrangement at most medical schools. 

Chairman Marks said that one of the most compelling 
issues was that of nursing education. Mr. Lynton said that the 
Trustees should be aware of recent developments at Amherst 
which could affect the kind of nursing program to be developed 
at Worcester. 

As was known, Amherst offered both a baccalaureate 
nursing degree program and a small master's program. Amherst 
had experienced difficulty in attracting and retaining faculty 
with the credentials necessary to sustain the graduate program. 
This brought about the likelihood that the master's program 
might lose its accreditation in an upcoming evaluation visit. 
For this reason the campus, after consultation with the Central 
Administration, had decided not to seek reaccreditation for the 
master's program. The campus was reviewing the resources 
needed to maintain a graduate program, and in the meantime the 
program had been deactivated. 

Trustee Troy asked if this had raised any outside 
protests. Mr. Lynton said it had not and noted that the 
decision had been made after discussions with members of the 
nursing profession in the area. Because the problem had been 
extant for some time, no new students had been admitted for the 
past year and a half. The few students still in the program 
were expected to be awarded their degrees in June, 1979. Mr. 
Lynton said he brought this to the attention of the Committee 
because it suggested that development of nursing programs at 
Worcester could be considered independently from those at 
Amherst. 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



I 



Chairman Marks asked how long it would take the 
campus to complete its review of the nursing program as a 
whole. Mr. Lynton said that the question regarding the re- 
sources for the graduate program would probably be answered 
within a few weeks. The review of the B.N. program would take 
somewhat longer. Chairman Marks said that it seemed possible 
that any decision taken at Amherst could fit in with those 
taken at Worcester. Mr. Lynton agreed this was so. 

Mr. Kelly said that the demise of the graduate 
program at Amherst would leave a very serious educational void 
in the central and western parts of the state. The need for 
nurses with graduate level training in those areas could easily 
be documented. 



-15- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UM/ Worcester — 
AHEC Grant Ap- 
plication 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Popko said it was her feeling that the 
baccalaureate program at Amherst should be continued. There 
was a need for the program, and if Amherst were to drop it, 
there would be a tremendous adverse reaction. She said that 
the whole issue went back to the distribution of resources 
throughout the western part of the state. One of the reasons 
that the Medical Center was so well accepted in western Massachu- 
setts was that the Center had made overtures to that part of 
the state and had made concerted efforts to make its resources 
and expertise available to the public. 

Mr. Kelly said that the nursing program at Amherst 
had been in disarray for some time. It was his thought that 
the Medical Center could play a major role in resuscitating the 
whole program. There had been discussions relating to a 
two-campus effort, whereby the expertise of the faculty of the 
Medical School could be used at both the undergraduate and 
graduate level. Chancellor Bulger said that there were a 
number of areas where it was educationally beneficial to both 
medical and nursing students when they were trained together. 
The Medical Center could also be of use in the nursing students' 
clinical rotations. If the students were encountering problems 
in rotations, the Chancellor of the Medical Center, for a 
variety of reasons including interrelationships and linkages, 
would have much more clout in working with the affiliated 
hospitals than would anyone on the Amherst campus. 

Trustee Troy said he agreed with Trustee Popko 
that there should be at least an undergraduate program in 
nursing at Amherst. However, it was not clear if the University 
could have a good undergraduate program in the absence of a 
graduate program. Mr. Kelly said that while having a graduate 
program would enhance the baccalaureate program, graduate and 
undergraduate nursing education were so compartmentalized that 
a graduate component was not crucial to a good undergraduate 
program. 

At the reqeust of the Chairman, Dr. Caper then 
reported on the Medical Center's application for an Area Health 
Education Center Grant. He reminded the Trustees that the 
ultimate objective of such centers was to aid the redistribution 
of physicians and other health professionals through educational 
programs which would be located some distance from university 
medical centers. 

The University, in association with the medical 
schools at Tufts and Boston University, had applied for and 
been awarded an AHEC grant. The grant of some $400,000 for the 
first year would underwrite the beginning of the development of 
a network of satellite educational programs. The University of 
Massachusetts Medical Center would be the "prime contractor" in 
the development. 

-16- 



t 



r 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



The Medical Center saw the problems as falling into 
two categories. There was a striking geographic maldistribution 
of health professionals, particularly physicians, both within 
the Commonwealth and within the Boston metropolitan area. 
Secondly, within the medical profession itself, there was a 
maldistribution of specialties, with a real shortage of primary 
care physicians. Further, 25 percent of the primary care 
physicians in the state were over the age of 60, and 30 percent 
of these were over the age of 65. 

Dr. Caper said that one of every five towns in 
the Commonwealth was, by federal definition, medically under- 
served. Many of these were in eastern Massachusetts and 
included, for example, Dorchester and South Boston. In order 
to achieve a more equitable distribution of health care profes- 
sionals, the Medical Center planned to begin by establishing 
AHEC's at five sites — Pittsfield, Springfield, Lowell/Lawrence, 
Fall River /New Bedford, and in the Dorchester/South Boston 
area. The last would be developed in conjunction with Boston 
University; the one in Springfield, with Tufts. 

The federal government had stipulated that the pro- 
gram as a whole had to have at least four elements — continuing 
medical education for practicing physicians, a medical student 
residency component, allied health professionals training 
and consumer health education. Dr. Caper said it should be 
noted that no single site was required to have all of the 
elements. 



The program, Dr. Caper continued, would be very 
decentralized, with many of the decisions being made at the 
individual AHEC site. For example, during the planning year 
AHEC boards, once established, would be asked to define the 
educational needs of their area. These would then be the 
subject of discussions and negotiations between the Medical 
Center and each of the boards to determine if the area's needs 
could best be met by the University of Massachusetts, Tufts, or 
Boston University. By the end of the planning year a specific 
overall plan would be presented to the Trustees. Dr. Caper 
concluded his remarks by noting that the federal government 
would grant 75 percent of the cost of the program for a period 
not exceeding nine years; the University would furnish 25 
percent in cash or in kind. It was estimated that the cash 
portion would be from 10 to 15 percent. 

Chairman Marks thanked Dr. Caper for his remarks 
and asked that the Committee be kept informed of the program's 
development. Then, speaking as an individual Trustee, he said 
he wished to comment on the matter of "gift horses" which had 
been discussed earlier. It was his feeling that the Board 
would be remiss if it played a passive role in cases where the 
state wished to thrust some program on the University. The 
Board should be made aware in advance of such notions and 
should be enabled to respond to them through appropriate 



-17- 



L-RP Coram. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



legislative activity. The Commonwealth was replete with 
programs, some appropriate, others inappropriate, which had 
been tacked on to state institutions. The University as a 
whole, and the Board in particular, would be remiss if it did 
not address the desirability of becoming involved in optometry 
or podiatry or other similar programs. He asked, still speaking 
as an individual Trustee, that an early warning system be 
devised so that the Trustees, in conjunction with the adminis- 
tration, could consider what action would be appropriate and 
reach some conclusion. 



t 



The Board had ample resources to respond to political 
thrusts, but it could not act through the legislative process 
if it were forced to deal with a fait accompli. After such an 
action the only decisions remaining were those of when to start 
the program, the size of the program and where it would be 
located. The Board was determined to resist programs that were 
inappropriate, but it had to know about them in advance. This 
was true for each of the campuses. 

Chancellor Bulger said that about two years ago, 
the New England Board of Higher Education had issued a report 
which suggested that the Medical Center be the site of a 
regional school of optometry as well as schools of podiatry and 
veterinary medicine. Subsequently the Chairman of the Board of 
the New England College of Optometry had asked if it would be 
possible for the Medical Center to house the College. The 
Medical Center faculty had voted this suggestion down. Most 
recently, the Chancellor continued, Mr. Bulger, President of 
the State Senate, had asked about the role of the Medical 
Center in the field of optometry. Chancellor Bulger told 
Senator Bulger that while it would be in the College of Optome- 
try's own interest to become a public institution, the Medical 
Center should not be asked to assume responsibility for a 
school of optometry. Even putting aside the tremendous terri- 
torial battle between ophthalmologists and optometrists, the 
burden would simply be too great. Senator Bulger had been 
somewhat surprised by this response as he apparently was 
advocating that the Medical Center take over the College of 
Optometry. 

Chairman Marks said there were several distinct 
issues in this matter. The question of whether the Common- 
wealth should have a public school of optometry was quite 
different from that of the role of the University in that 
field. Chairman Marks noted that Massachusetts was a peculiar 
state in that the Legislature could mandate the existence of a 
variety of professional schools and programs. If the Univer- 
sity was the intended site of these programs, then the Board 
should be made aware of this intent as soon as possible in 
order to determine the appropriateness of the proposal and to 
take whatever action was in the interest of the University. 



H 



r 



-18- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



Chancellor Bulger said that the Dean of the College 
of Optometry and others were seeking the support of the Medical 
Center in its efforts to move into the public sector. There 
would be continuing political pressure to make the Medical 
Center the vehicle for this move. Chairman Marks pointed out 
that there were alternatives; for example, an affiliation with 
the Worcester State College. This could include an appropriate 
interrelationship with the Medical Center. Chancellor Bulger 
said that the alternatives included establishing an independent 
public school. There were a number of buildings in Worcester 
that could be used by such a school. In his opinion the 
school, whatever its status or affiliation, should not be 
remote from a health education center. Chairman Marks said 
this matter would have to be monitored closely. It was possible 
that a solution could be found which would satisfy all parties. 

Chairman Marks said that if the University were to 
solve the problem by taking over the College, the Legislature 
would be very grateful. However, within two years the same 
Legislature would balk at funding the College. Trustee Troy 
said the Legislature tended to forget very easily. It continu- 
ally forgot that it was the Legislature that had asked the 
University to establish the Medical School. 

Mr. Kelly said that the Trustees should know that 
the Medical Center had been approached by representatives of 
the Massachusetts Podiatry Society about the possibility of a 
pilot program in podiatry, wherein from 10 to 15 students would 
take their first two years' training at the Medical Center. 
The students would then transfer to a school of podiatry 
outside the region. Unlike optometry, there was no school of 
podiatry in New England. This matter was very much in its 
preliminary stage. The Medical Center was considering initiat- 
ing a feasibility study. 

Trustee Popko asked if the Center, in its long-range 
planning, foresaw the need for new construction of facilities. 
Chancellor Bulger said this matter was being studied and an 
estimate of needs would be available in the spring of 1979. 
One factor in this was that in order to get federal funding for 
the present physical plant, the design for the Clinical Sciences 
Building had been altered by reducing the number of offices and 
increasing the number of laboratories. Thus there was a 
shortage of office space. The Chancellor said that he did not 
see that the Center would need any new buildings if the present 
structures were more carefully arranged. 

Dr. Caper said that there was a need for a conference 
room that seated more than 175 people, the capacity of the 
present room. At a recent seminar more than 100 applications 
had to be returned because there was not sufficient space to 
accommodate them. Chancellor Bulger said that this need might 
be met by utilizing non-University space elsewhere in Worcester. 

-19- 



L-RP Comm. 
11/8/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Lynton said it was important to note that the 
discussion should not leave the impression that the University 
was returning to the concept of a major and more or less 
isolated health sciences center. Further programmatic develop- 
ments at the Medical Center would be made, working in close 
collaboration with other institutions in the area. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. 




Dorothy Eiqb/el 
Assistant Secretary to 
the Board of Trustees 



r 



-20- 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE 
ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 



November 22, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain; President Knapp; 
Trustee Dennis; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop; Mr. 
Miller, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer, Krumsiek, Marks, and 
Tyson 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Hogan, University Controller; Mr. Stine, Assistant 
Vice President for Management 

UM/Amherst : Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor for Administra- 
tion and Finance 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Cathey, Director of Fiscal Affairs 

The meeting came to order at 2:10 p.m. Chairman 
Crain called for discussion on the Board of Higher Education 
Budget Recommendations for FY 1980 . Mr. Stine said that the 
BHE, at its last meeting, had considered but not approved its 
recommendations for the FY 1980 maintenance budget. The Board 
had not included the Teaching Hospital in its consideration. 

In round numbers, Mr. Stine continued, the recom- 
mendations being considered were: $86,800,000 for Amherst, the 
University had asked for $87,500,000; $25,200,000 for Boston, 
the University had asked for $26,000,000; $13,000,000 for the 
Medical School; the University had asked for $13,800,000; and 
$1,200,000 for the Central Administration, the University had 
asked for $1,500,000. The BHE had not considered any recommend- 
ation for the Institute for Governmental Services. The total 
considered by the BHE was $126,800,000; the University's 
request was $128,800,000. Percentage increases over FY 1979 
were as f ollows--Amhers t , 12 percent; Boston, 16 percent; 
Worcester, 16 percent; and the Central Administration, 19 
percent. 



BHE Budget 
Recommendations 
for FY80 



B&F Comm. 
11/22/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The comparable percentage increases for the other 
public universities, Mr. Stine continued were as follows: the 
BHE was considering a 17 percent increase for Lowell, the 
University had asked for 22 percent; Southeastern Massachusetts 
had asked for a 49 percent increase, the BHE was considering 17 
percent. The situation with regard to the individual community 
colleges was one of some confusion. The BHE recommendation for 
the colleges, excluding collective bargaining costs, was an 
overall increase of 7 percent; the Community College Board had 
asked for 20 percent. If collective bargaining costs were 
factored into the BHE recommendation, it would double. The 
state colleges had asked for a 28 percent increase, the BHE had 
recommended 14 percent . 



I 



President Knapp said that his discussions with 
Chancellor McGuire had dealt almost exclusively vith state 
funding for the Central Administration. This was the second 
time the University had asked for full state funding for the 
Administration. The President said it was his strong impres- 
sion that as a result of the discussion, the BHE would re- 
examine its position and would probably recommend a larger 
increase in state funds for the University Administration. 

President Knapp said he had pressed the case that if 

the BHE did not recommend a more reasonable increase, things 

would continue to go down hill. The central office could not 
operate with the present BHE recommendation. 

Trustee Dennis asked if one of the reasons the 
BHE did not recommend more money for the Central Administration 
was because of overscale appointments. Mr. Stine said he 
believed that the reason was that the staff at the BHE was 
relatively new and they apparently assumed that the request 
included provision for a number of new positions. They did not 
understand that the request was to fill vacant positions and 
that in prior years the operation had been underfunded. The 
BHE staff, as a result of the discussion, now had a better 
understanding of the Central Administration. 

Mr. Beatty asked if funds for library acquisitions 
had been discussed. Mr. Stine said they had not; however the 
Board had said they were going to recommend something for 
libraries. Chairman Crain asked if the University request for 
libraries was comparable to that for FY 1979. Mr. Stine said 
this was the case. 



H 



President Knapp said that he had discussed the 
library at UM/Boston with a consultant and that Mr. Lynton had 
talked with the library staff at Amherst. It was apparent that 
the University was going to have to face up to some very severe 
problems in regard to the library collections at both campuses. 



r 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



B&F Comm. 
11/22/78 



Costs continued to escalate and the investment in periodicals 
and serials was reaching the point where the University would 
not be able to purchase monographs and individual volumes. 

Mr. Lynton said that Amherst had 13,000 periodical 
subscriptions, a not really large number for a research library. 
Further, the usefulness of many serials was time limited, and 
there was a dilemma in that some 80 to 90 percent of the use of 
serials was in 25 percent of the titles. In other words about 
3,000 of the serials filled a greatly disproportionate share of 
the need. Chairman Crain asked if the need could be met by the 
use of microprint copies of the journals and remote terminals, 
hr. Lynton said that copyright law was the reason why such a 
solution could not be implemented. 

In Great Britain, Mr. Lynton continued, there was a 
national depository library for rare and little used periodicals 
which could be provided on request. There were ongoing discus- 
sions on establishing a similar library in the United States 
but there had been no action. President Knapp said that the 
Council of Research Libraries offered a somewhat similar 
service; however, the collection seemed to consist of only the 
most esoteric journals. He noted that another difficulty with 
microprint editions was that many faculty members, including 
himself, wanted to work with an actual volume in hand rather 
than a picture on the screen of a remote terminal. He concluded 
by noting that many of the uses of serials were archival 
in nature, thus it was necessary to have continuity of holdings. 

Mr. Beatty said that one problem at Amherst was that 
although present resources would allow the purchase of additional 
serial titles, funding was so erratic that there was no certainty 
that the subscriptions could be renewed in future years. 
President Knapp said the situation was similar to that which 
obtained during the depression. Libraries were forced to drop 
subscriptions and then, during better times, they had to fill 
in gaps in their holdings at a very high cost. He said that 
another factor was that of the proliferation of journals. In 
many disciplines the number of major journals had at least 
tripled over the past two decades. 

Returning to the matter of the BHE recommendations, 
Trustee Dennis asked if the Board in making its recommendations 
eliminated specific items from the University's request or if 
it reduced the request by percentages. Mr. Stine said that the 
BHE did the latter. Also the staff had devised and used as a 
basis a formula that related overall staffing to enrollment. 
When dealing with the Medical School the formula was apparently 
unworkable so they went through the school's request and reduced 
every item slightly. 



-3- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



B&F Comm. 
11/22/78 

Revised Schedule 
of Committee 
Meetings 



The Committee then briefly discussed the revised 
schedule of Committee meetings. The members present found the 
revised schedule acceptable and Chairman Crain asked that it be 
sent to the other members for their approval. 

Mr. Beatty said that he had a suggestion which he had 
discussed with Mr. DeNyse and which the Trustees might wish to 
consider. At one time the full Board met at the end of June to 
approve the budget for the next fiscal year; recent practice 
was to have the Board meeting the first Wednesday in June and 
to approve a continuing resolution which enabled the University 
to function until the budget was approved in September. Mr. 
Beatty suggested that the Board resume the earlier practice. 
While there was no problem administering the Trust Fund accounts 
under the continuing resolution, some of the actions taken with 
regard to state funds were of doubtful legality. 

Mr. DeNyse said that when the Board practice was to 
consider the budget in June, the budget was approved subject to 
legislative enactment. If it proved necessary to make technical 
adjustments, this was done by amending the June vote. There 
was a danger in doing this; however, experience over the years 
had shown that the University knew, with a fair degree of 
accuracy, what the budget would be by the middle of June. 
Speaking from a campus perspective, Mr. DeNyse said that the 
earlier practice made a great deal of sense. Chairman Crain 
said that this was a matter which would have to be examined. 

Speaking for the record, Trustee Dennis said that 
the Committee had not received a quarterly report on the 
University Small Business/Minority Purchasing Program for some 
time. He asked who was responsible for compiling the report. 
Mr. DeNyse said that his office did this and such a report 
would be available very soon. 

Chairman Crain asked when the analysis of those 
units which operated with outside funding and for which the 
University absorbed the overhead costs would be available. 
hr« Lynton said this would be completed in time for the December 
meeting. In response to his further question, Chairman Crain 
was told that a report on deferred maintenance would soon be 
available; in addition, there would be an analysis of the cost 
of the renovation and operation of the twelfth and thirteenth 
floors at 250 Stuart Street. 

Trustee Dennis then asked about the suggestion, made 
some time ago, that the Committee, as well as any other inter- 
ested Trustees, be given a presentation describing the total 
financial workings and interrelationships of the University. 
While those Trustees who had served on the Board for some 



-4- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

years had a fair understanding of how the administrative and 
financial operations of the University worked, others did not. 
President Knapp said that this would be a useful exercise and 
would be attended to. 

Chairman Crain then called for a motion to enter 
into executive session in order to discuss a personnel matter. 
The Committee, he said, would reconvene in open session. 

At 2:35 p.m. it was moved, seconded and, on roll call 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

Chairman Crain, President Knapp, Trustee Dennis 
and Mr. Barrus voted for the motion. Trustees Breyer, Krumsiek, 
Marks and Tyson were absent. 

At 2:47 p.m. it was moved, seconded and on roll call 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 

Without discussion it was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees 
appoint Robert H. Brand Treasurer of the 
University of Massachusetts with respon- 
sibilities as detailed in Doc. T78-126. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Committee and the meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 



B&F Comm. 
11/22/78 



Executive 
Session 




Dorothy Eic(/el, 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



-5- 



Appointment of 
Robert H. Brand 
as Treasurer of 
the University 

(Doc. T78-126) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



r 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEES ON 
FACULTY AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND STUDENT AFFAIRS 

November 29, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



ATTENDANCE: Committee and Committee Staff : Chairmen Troy and Shearer, Presi- 
dent Knapp; Trustees Breyer , Burack, Kassler, 0' Sullivan, Popko , 
and Tyson; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck 
representing Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Owens representing Trustee Okin; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Committee Members Absent : Trustees McNeil and Morgenthau 

Other Trustees : Trustee Marks 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Vice President for Management; Mr. 
Lyons and Ms. Simmons, Associate Vice Presidents for Academic 
Affairs 



I 



UM/Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost; Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, Director of Student Services and Director of Finan- 
cial Aid; Ms. Kedesdy, Director of Freshman Admissions; Mr. Sher- 
man, Director of Transfer Affairs; Professor Fletcher, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Tubbs , Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Gamst, Director of Graduate Studies; Profes- 
sor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Feinblatt, Director of Student Affairs; Ms. 



Eckhert, Assistant Dean for Adminissions 

Guests : Messrs. Barenberg and DeLima, students, UM/Amherst 

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. Chairman 

Shearer called for discussion of Admissions and Financial Aid. 



Ms. Simmons said the background material supplied to the 
Trustees showed that freshmen and transfer applications and accep- 
tances had increased significantly at Boston and Amherst. Also, 
the data from both campuses indicated that the increased accep- 
tance rates had not resulted in the admission of less qualified 
students. At Worcester applications had decreased by about 10 
percent. All indications were that this was part of a national 
trend, as there had been a similar decline in the number of stu- 
dents applying to medical schools across the country. 



Admissions and 
Financial Aid 



F&EP/SA 
11/29/78 



Out-of-state 
Tuition 



UM/Amherst — 
Center for the 
Study of New 
Russian Liter- 
ature 
(Doc. T78-128) 



UM/Amherst — 
Interdepart- 
mental Majors 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The Financial Aid reports stated that the recent inclu- 
sion of middle income student eligibility for Basic Educational 
Opportunity Grants would greatly increase the work loads of the 
financial aid offices. It was estimated that 80 percent of stu- 
dents at most institutions would be eligible for some form of 
financial aid. In order to handle this increase, additional 
staff and improved electronic data processing would be needed. 

Ms. Simmons noted that the Legislature had mandated a 
new formula for calculating tuition for out-of-state students and 
had increased the minimum residency requirement from one year to 
eighteen months. Both actions would severely hamper the Univer- 
sity's efforts to attract and retain out-of-state students, which 
would have serious short and long term implications. 

Trustee Tyson said that one student concern was the 
lack of clarity on the mandate. Chairman Shearer agreed that the 
legislation was confusing, and noted that now currently enrolled 
students were subject to the tuition increase, the mandate would 
create a rippling effect — more financial aid would be needed. 

Messrs. Barenberg and DeLima, in the course of their 
remarks, said that if an increase had to be imposed it should be 
for FY 1981 rather than FY 1980; that the Board should call a 
moratorium on tuition hikes; and that if an increase had to be 
introduced, it should be as small as possible. 

This concluded the business of the joint meeting. The 
time was 3:00 p.m. 

Trustee Troy then assumed the chair for the meeting of 
the Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy. The first item 
dealt with was Center for the Study of New Russian Literature — 
UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-128) . Mr. Lynton said it was not entirely 
clear if Board action on this matter was necessary, as the Center 
would be, both budgetarily and administratively, within the De- 
partment of Slavic Languages and Literatures. However, since the 
Center would be using the University's name to seek outside fund- 
ing, it had been decided to ask the Board to approve establish- 
ment of the Center. 

After a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees establish a 
Center for the Study of New Russian Literature at 
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, as de- 
tailed in Trustee Document T78-128. 

The Committee then heard a report on Interdepartmental 
Majors — UM/Amherst, which involved a recombining of existing 
courses. The Faculty Senate had recommended and the Chancellor 
had approved a three year continuation of the five Interdepart- 
mental Majors in which Linguistics was associated with Chinese, 



-2- 



H 



t 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



F&EP/SA 
11/29/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Graduate Stu- 
dent Stipends 



Japanese, Russian, German and Philosophy. The programs in Philos- 
ophy and Classics and Philosophy and Mathematics were terminated. 



Mr. Lynton reported both the Central Administration and 
campus would discuss Graduate Student Stipends — UM/Amherst, to 
determine if changes were advisable and feasible. Stipends at 
Amherst are in the range of those offered at other institutions 
but at the low end of the scale; while equity would suggest that 
the stipends should be increased, campus resources are very lim- 
ited and if the stipends were raised, fewer students would be 
hired. 



The Committee then discussed University Center for Stud- University 

ies in Policy and the Public Interest (Doc. T78-127). The dis- Center for 

| cussion was essentially the same as that which took place at the 

December 6, 1978, meeting of the Board, and is recorded in some 

detail in the minutes of that meeting. 



At the conclusion of the discussion it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



Studies in 
Policy and the 
Public Interest 
(Doc. T78-127) 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees establish 
a University Center for Studies in Policy and the 
Public Interest, as detailed in Trustee Document 
T78-127. 

Trustee Burack and Ms. Pinck voted against the motion. 

The Committee then discussed Graduate Education — UM/ UM/Boston — 
Boston. Mr. lynton recalled that last spring the Board lifted the Graduate Edu- 
moratorium on further development of graduate programs at Boston. cation 
It had been agreed that the campus would focus on terminal mas- 
. ter's programs. These programs would relate to the career goals 
and opportunities of the students and would not unnecessarily 
duplicate programs elsewhere. 

At the time of Board approval, the Committee had asked 
Boston to provide a long-range plan for the development of gradu- 
ate programs. It was suggested that this plan include a rather 
specific set of guidelines that would not only lead to rational 
development, but also enable the administration and the Board to 
adequately review new program proposals. Also requested was a 
specific outline and examples of specific programs that were ex- 
'■ pected . 

The plan received from the campus showed the general 
campus direction, but did not offer the degree of specificity re- 
quired for individual program or general programmatic outline. 
. This matter would be addressed further by the Central Administra- 
tion and the campus. As requested, the campus had supplied two 
programmatic examples. Both the proposed MA Program in Applied 
Physics and the developing MA Program in Critical and Creative 
Thinking shared several desirable features — they showed how a 



-3- 



F&EP/SA 
11/29/78 



UM/Boston — 

Establishment 

of Master's 

Program in 

Applied 

Physics 

(Doc. T78-129) 



Petitions for 
Waiver of Sab- 
batical Leave 
Requirement 



Executive 
Session 



Tenure Appeal 
of Professor 
James Matlack 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

liberal arts based program could be career oriented; each would 
lead to a terminal degree; and each provided the potential for an 
economy of scale; and with further development, they could form 
part of a cluster of courses common to several programs. 

A good deal of discussion centered on faculty attitudes 
and morale, particularly in relation to the faculty's willingness 
to participate in the development of new and nontraditional pro- 
grams. Chancellor Van Ummersen believed many faculty could and 
would become active again if it were demonstrated that graduate 
programs involving a career element could also be academically 
respectable. The faculty needed a clear signal from the Board, 
such as approval of a specific program proposal, that their ef- 
forts would be to some purpose. 

In discussing the proposed MA Program in Applied Physic 
it was noted that the faculty had put together an innovative, 
imaginative and academically sound program, and had carefully 
examined the career oriented element of the program. 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees approve the 
establishment of a Master's Program in Applied 
Physics at the University of Massachusetts at Boston 
as detailed in Trustee Document T78-129, said pro- 
posal to be submitted to the Board of Higher Educa- 
tion for its review and approval, to be implemented 
in September, 1979, or as soon thereafter as possi- 
ble. 

The Committee then discussed the Petitions for Waiver 
of Sabbatical Leave Requirement . This discussion was quite de- 
tailed, touching such matters as previous waivers and practices 
at other Universities. Throughout the discussion it was the 
sense of the Committee that the Board should adhere to its stated 
policy and that all three petitions should be denied. 

Chairman Troy then called for a motion to go into execu 
tive session in order to discuss tenure appeals. At 4:35 p.m., 
without discussion, it was moved, seconded and on roll call 



\ 



* 



VOTED 



To enter executive session 



Trustees Breyer and Popko voted for the motion, as did 
Chairman Troy and President Knapp . Trustees Burack, Dukakis and 
Morgenthau were absent. 

At 4:55 p.m. the Committee agreed to end the executive 
session. It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To request the President to review the tenure case 

of Professor James Matlack and advise this Committee 



-4- 



I 



•» K f At- . 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

whether in his opinion there was procedural error 
in the case which would justify this Committee's 
recommending that the Chancellor of the Amherst 
campus reconsider his decision. 

VOTED : To instruct the Assistant Secretary to inform 

Professor Louise (Mendillo) Dunlap that the Com- 
mittee has decided not to review her tenure appeal 
on the ground that the Academic Personnel Policy 
did not require that her tenure decision year be 
postponed. 

There was no further business to come before the Com- 
mittee and the meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m. 



UJUaJL, 

Dorothy Eicj^bl 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



F&EP/SA 
11/29/78 



Tenure Appeal 
of Professor 
Louise Dunlap 




I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



I 



r 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON 
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 



December 4, 1978; 2:30 p.m. 
Thirteenth Floor Conference Room 
Central Administrative Offices 
250 Stuart Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Kassler; President 
Knapp; Trustee Burack; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; 
Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Dukakis, McNulty, Romer and 
Sawtelle 

Central Administration : Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Gilmore, Executive Assistant to the President; 
Mr. Meehan, Consultant; Mr. Stine, Assistant Vice President 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Littlefield, Director of Planning; Mr. Simpson, 
Staff Assistant, Planning Office 

UM/Boston : Mr. Prince, Director, Planning and Development 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Burneson, Associate Vice Chancellor for 
Administration; Mr. Slattery, Director of Security 

Invited Guests : Mr. John Bednarski of Bednarksi-Stein, Archi- 
tects; Mr. Morris Goldings, University of Massachusetts 
Building Authority 



The meeting was called to order at 2:45 p.m. by 
Chairman Kassler. The first item of agenda was Amendments to 
Motor Vehicle Rules and Regulations (Doc. T75-155A) — UM/Amherst. 
At the request of the Chairman, Mr. DeNyse explained that the 
proposed amendments would bring the University rules and 
regulations into conformance with those of the State Department 
of Public Works. This would assist the campus police in 
prosecuting on-campus violations. In response to a query from 
Chairman Kassler, Mr. DeNyse said that the amendments had been 
thoroughly reviewed at all levels on campus and by the Town of 
Amherst police department. It was noted that the campus police 
were also special police of the town of Amherst and were 
empowered to make arrests off as well as on campus. There were 
no objections to the amendments and on motion made and seconded, 
it was 



UM/Amherst — 
Amendments to 
Motor Vehicle 
Rules and 
Regulations 
(Doc. T75-155A) 



B&G 
12/4/78 



UM/Worcester — 
Parking and 
Traffic Plan 
(Doc. T76- 
014A) 



UM/Amherst — 
Knowlton 
House Renova- 
tion 
(Doc. T78-131) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



VOTED ; To recommend to the Board of Trustees that 
the Motor Vehicle Rules and Regulations of 
the Amherst Campus (Doc. T75-155A77) be 
amended as proposed by the Department of 
Public Safety. 

At Chairman Kassler's request, Mr. Meehan introduced 
the second agenda item, Parking and Traffic Plan — UM/Worcester 
(Doc. T76-014A). Mr. Meehan explained that originally the 
Board had approved a parking and traffic plan which had antici- 
pated the existence of a parking garage. The plan to build the 
parking garage had since been abandoned, and it was now neces- 
sary to revise the parking and traffic plan to indicate the new 
set of circumstances. Trustee approval was necessary, added 
Mr. Burneson, to enable the campus police to enforce the 
regulations. The local courts required an approved set of 
regulations before they would prosecute violators. By means of 
a drawing, Mr. Burneson then explained the traffic flow, 
indicating that two of the lots shown on the plan had yet to be 
completed. It was anticipated that completion would occur in 
the spring. He said there was a need to perfect the signage on 
the north and south perimeter roads and some of the interior 
lots. Replying to a question from President Knapp , Mr. 
Burneson said that there were no parking restrictions at the 
present time except for the lots reserved for out-patient, 
emergency room, and visitor parking. Employees were not 
restricted to particular lots. When the lots have all been 
completed, there will be space for 1600 cars. Discussions are 
going on with regard to obtaining capital outlay for additional 
spaces. Trustee Kassler asked if the parking lots were perma- 
nent lots and Mr. Burneson replied that they were. Trustee 
Burack asked whether landscaping was included in the work 
currently being performed. Mr. Burneson said that considerable 
landscaping had been done and that the terraced effect was very 
pleasing to the eye. Trustee Burack suggested that paths from 
the lots to the buildings be arranged for the convenience of 
the persons using the lots. 

There was no further discussion, and on motion made 
and seconded, it was 

VOTED ; To recommend to the Board of Trustees 
that the plans for traffic control for 
the Worcester campus (Doc. T76-014A) 
be amended by substituting revised plans 
therefor. 

The Committee next discussed Knowlton House Renova- 
tion — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-131). Mr. Littlefield began by 
giving a brief history of the residence halls. In the past ten 
years, he said, six dormitories had been remodeled. Only 



-2- 



I 



* 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



B&G 
12/4/78 



limited remodeling had been done, he said, in order that the 
rents on these buildings would not have to be greatly increased. 
Since the remodeling began, several events have occurred to 
change the planning: 1) the responsibility for the dormitories 
was moved from the Office of Administration and Financial 
Affairs to the Office of Student Affairs, 2) federal and state 
laws were passed requiring provision for handicapped access, 
3) the Office of Residential Resource Management prepared a 
plan for remodeling, renovation and updating to comply with 
state codes, 4) this was followed by the Wallace, Floyd, 
Ellenzweig, Moore Physical Survey of Residence Halls and Family 
Housing . 

Last fiscal year, the University was successful in 
obtaining $2 million from the state for the remodeling of the 
state-owned dormitories including provision for handicapped 
access. Originally it had been intended to renovate both the 
Brooks and Knowlton residential facilities as one project, but 
for various reasons, the project had now been split and Knowl- 
ton would be renovated first. Mr. Littlefield then turned to 
the matter of the timetable for the completion of this work. 

He explained that the timing of the completion was 
very important since the University needed the maximum amount 
of dormitory space when the September semester began. Over the 
course of the year, for one reason or another, dormitory space 
opened up and it was possible to vacate some of the dormitory 
space for renovation. 

Mr. Littlefield said that money for the renovations 
to the Brooks and Knowlton Houses was appropriated in January 
of 1978. However, the project was not advertised by the Bureau 
of Building Construction until March. Applications closed in 
April and the Designer Selection Board reviewed applications in 
June. The first meeting with the architect took place in July, 
at which time the architect indicated that it would be impos- 
sible to complete plans for both dormitories in time for 
occupancy in September, 1979. The project was, therefore, 
split and the schedule for the Knowlton House portion has now 
been confirmed. Plans are now ready for preliminary action by 
the Board so that bid documents can be completed and the BBC 
can bid the project in January. This will allow for completion 
in the summer, but the University will have to take beneficial 
use and occupancy before punch list items can be completed. 
Acceptance by the Board would be requested in November, 1979. 

Trustee Kassler asked what safeguards were provided 
to ensure performance by the BBC. He was informed that the 
BBC, because of recent bad experiences, was sensitive to the 
necessity of ensuring that the public received what it had 
paid for, and he did not foresee problems in this regard. 



-3- 



B&G 
12/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Also, the University had requested that the designer be present 
during the entire construction period so that there would be no 
question of divided responsibility for the project. Trustee 
Kassler asked if the University had an obligation to request a 
special arrangement with the BBC or to go beyond the BBC to 
either the Governor or the Attorney General to ask that the BBC 
be directed to hold back enough money to protect the project. 
Mr. Meehan said the risk of occupying a building before it has 
been fully completed is much less today than it has been 
previously. The BBC is much more responsive to criticism. He 
said there were statutory limitations as to how much money 
could be withheld on a project. When the work is 99 percent 
complete, the state must pay the contractor. However, there 
are other types of controls that can be applied. Trustee 
Burack suggested that it might be desirable for the Legislature 
to legislate a greater percentage of money to be withheld. She 
observed that the schedule was very tight. 

Mr. Simpson then summarized the program for the 
building. This project, he said, had been generated from three 
sources — the need for renovation as perceived by the Office of 
Residential Resource Management, the need for a choice of life 
styles for the students, and the requirements of the laws for 
handicapped access. To achieve these goals, the dormitories 
were divided into zones. Some of the dormitories in each zone 
were made accessible to the handicapped. Knowlton House, an 
all girls' dormitory, was built in 1949 and occupied in 1950. 
The electrical system is now out of date. The plumbing needs 
to be replaced. Then there has been the ordinary amount of 
wear and tear. A study was made, which was reviewed by the 
physical plant personnel and the health and safety office. 
Input was received from students, from heads of residence, from 
the area office, from the office of handicapped student affairs 
and from the planning office. An analysis was then made of 
the priorities and the constraints and from this a proposal was 
developed and forwarded to the Designer. 



The present double rooms, for instance, cannot accom- 
modate two handicapped students; therefore, the handicapped 
must room alone. Provisions are now being made to provide a 
few triple rooms, which will allow handicapped persons to have 
roommates if they so desire. Mr. Simpson concluded his pre- 
sentation at this point and asked Mr. Bednarski of Bednarski- 
Stein to explain the design for the renovated building. 

Mr. Bednarksi distributed photographs of the dormi- 
tory in its present state and then presented renderings of the 
building as it would look after renovation. Among the features 
planned were ramps for the handicapped, area lounges and 
kitchens on each floor, and the use of bay windows at the ends 
of corridors to reduce the effect of long, narrow, dark hallways 

-4- 



r 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Under the new design, he said the occupancy rate 
would drop from 167 to 159. Baffles would be used to hide 
unsightly plumbing and heating pipes, additional convenience 
outlets and safety equipment would be provided. The estimated 
cost of the project is $600,000 to $650,000, which is about $20 
per square foot. Double-glazed glass would be provided to 
reduce heat loss from the bay windows. At the conclusion of 
Mr. Bednarski's presentation, on motion made and seconded it 
was 



VOTED ; To recommend to the Board of Trustees 

that the preliminary plans for the reno- 
vation of Knowlton House be approved. 
Further, to recommend that the President 
of the University be delegated the 
authority to approve final working plans 
and specifications for said project. 

Chairman Kassler introduced the last item of agenda, 
a report by Mr. Morris Goldings, Counsel and Secretary- 
Treasurer of the University of Massachusetts Building Author- 
ity . Chairman Kassler said he had asked Mr. Goldings for a 
report of Building Authority activities with the hope of 
reestablishing working relationships between the Building 
Authority and the Trustees. He said he felt it would be 
helpful to all to know who is doing what and to have an over- 
view of where the University stands on its various building 
projects. 

Mr. Goldings said that ten years ago, when Trustee 
Haigis was Chairman of the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, 
representatives of the Building Authority had been invited to, 
and had attended, meetings of this committee. That was the 
time during which the largest number of building projects were 
underway. The bond authorization at that time totalled $80 
million. The period of growth is now over and the Building 
Authority operations are now confined mostly to matters of 
maintenance. 

Mr. Goldings stated that people, including students, 
perceive the Building Authority as being flush with money which 
they feel could be used to correct some of the various main- 
tenance problems at the University. The Building Authority 
manages thirteen or fourteen construction funds. The money in 
these funds comes from unused money appropriated for specific 
building projects. These monies total at least $2 million. 
However, under the present trust indenture, there are only two 
options for using these funds: 1) the project can be kept open 
and the Authority can wait for the University to request 
additional money for use on that particular project, or 
2) the Authority can close the project, which means that money 



-5- 



B&G 
12/4/78 



Report on 
University of 
Massachusetts 
Building 
Authority 



B&G 
12/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



can then only be used to pay off the oldest bonds. The Build- 
ing Authority also has a Reserve Fund under Section 10 of the 
General Laws for use in emergencies. This fund is of little 
use to the University, for it cannot be used for maintenance. 
It is held in reserve against the possibility of unoccupied 
dormitories. 



Mr. Goldings said that the problem facing the 
Authority and the University is to find ways to make these 
resources available to resolve some of the University's press- 
ing maintenance problems. One method that has been suggested 
is refinancing of bond issues , thereby spreading the debt 
over a longer period of time and freeing up some funds for 
current use. A financial adviser would be required to look 
into the complexities of such a solution. The Building Author- 
ity currently has $200,000 for repairing the leaking roof of 
the Campus Center but has no assurance that this amount will be 
anywhere near sufficient to cover the cost. 

Mr. Goldings explained that dormitories at the 
University fall into three categories — those owned by the 
state, those owned by the Building Association and those owned 
by the Building Authority. It has been suggested that the 
Building Authority take over the debts of the Building Associa- 
tion. Mr. Goldings said that it is difficult for students to 
understand why one project cannot help another, but the law 
does now allow the pooling of the funds of various projects. 
The Building Authority, he said, was originally conceived as a 
financing authority. It has management and service agreements 
with the University to handle these functions. He agreed that 
pooling of resources would solve a good many of the Univer- 
sity's maintenance problems, but this could probably only be 
accomplished by a new indenture. 

Trustee Burack suggested that it might be well for 
someone from the University to speak with John Cataldo of the 
State College System, who had conceived of a way to help the 
state colleges with a similar problem. President Knapp ob- 
served that if the University was now accepting 85 percent of 
those who applied for admission and if there were to be a 26 
percent decline in enrollments as had been suggested in a 
recent news report, there might very well be need for the money 
currently held in the Section 10 Reserve Fund. Mr. Goldings 
replied that since, under the bond agreement, the Building 
Authority buildings had to be filled before other dormitories, 
this would be unlikely to happen. 

President Knapp raised one final issue. He said 
that money had been requested in the capital outlay submission 
for renovations to the lobby of the Central Administrative 
Offices. However, if this were not to be forthcoming, other 



^ 



r 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



means of financing should be considered. Trustee Burack agreed 
that as a minimum the lobby doors should be replaced, and 
carpeting and new lighting should be provided. Mr. Meehan said 
that it was unlikely that much money would be provided for this 
purpose and suggested the possibility of requesting some of the 
agencies who used space virtually rent free to contribute to 
the upkeep of the building. The possibility of obtaining some 
of the deferred maintenance money appropriated to the BBC was 
also discussed, but considered not to be a likely prospect. It 
as suggested that other means of financing be explored. 

There being no further business, the meeting was 
adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 



B&G 
12/4/78 



Dorothy Eichfel, 




Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



I 



-7- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



^ 



r 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF 
TRUSTEE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE 



December 5, 1978; 7:30 p.m. 

Amherst Room 

Lord Jeffrey Inn 

Amherst, Massachusetts 



Committee and Committee Staff : Chairman Crain; Trustees Krum- 
siek and Marks 

Absent Committee Members : Trustees Breyer , Dennis and Tyson 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Searson, General Counsel; Mr. Gilmore, Executive 
Assistant to the President; Mr. Hogan, University Controller; 
Mr. Stine, Assistant Vice President 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chan- 
cellor for Administration and Finance 

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairs- 
man Crain, who asked Mr. DeNyse to open discussion on the Salary 
for Acting Chancellor — UM/Worcester . When Dr. Goodman was ap- 
pointed Acting Chancellor at the November meeting of the Board, 
no adjustment was made to his salary. The proposed salary ad- 
justment would appropriately compensate Dr. Goodman for the in- 
creased responsibility as acting Chancellor and would be in line 
with the salary of Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Serv- 
ices, with whom Dr. Goodman is sharing the responsibilities for 
the administration of the Medical Center. After brief discus- 
sion, on motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees ap- 
prove the temporary salary adjustment for Dr. 
Goodman as detailed in Personnel Action T78-132. 

Chairman Crain asked for Concurrence in the Appoint- 
ment of Bernice E. Bradin as Vice President for Management . Mr. 
Lynton commented that Ms. Bradin would be invited by the college 
of Professional Studies at UM/Boston to join their faculty on an 
adjunct basis in addition to performing her duties as Vice Presi 
dent. After a lengthy discussion, on motion made and seconded, 
it was 

VOTED : To recommend that the Board of Trustees concur 
with the President's action in the appointment 
of Bernice E. Bradin as Vice President for Man- 
agement and Professor A of the University of 
Massachusetts . 



UM/Worcester — 
Salary for 
Acting 
Chancellor 



Concurrence 
in the 
Appointment 
of Bernice 
E. Bradin as 
Vice Presi- 
dent 
for Management 



B&F 


12/5/78 


Salary- 


Adjustment 


for Non- 


unit Pro- 


fessional 


Employees 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Crain asked for discussion of Salary Adjust- 
ment for Non-unit Professional Employees . Mr. DeNyse said that 
Trustee Kassler, President Knapp and he had met with Governor 
Dukakis on December 1 to obtain assurance that money would be 
made available to enable the University to pay its non-unit pro- 
fessional employees the salary increase granted by the Legisla- 
ture but not funded through an oversight in the wording of the 
appropriation legislation. The governor had indicated that al- 
though corrective legislation would be necessary to allocate 
funds for this purpose, it was the intent of the Legislature and 
the Governor's Office that non-unit personnel as well as person- 
nel covered by collective bargaining agreements receive in- 
creases. The Governor agreed to confirm this intent in writing 
to the President. Once corrective legislation was passed, the 
money would be forwarded from the state salary reserve account 
to the University. It was therefore recommended that the Univer 
sity pay the non-unit professional employees from existing Uni- 
versity funds. Mr. Stine explained that the salary adjustments 
involving approximately $1.15 million are retroactive payment of 
the 3 percent across-the-board salary increase for fiscal year 
1978 to those employees who were on the payroll as of October 1 
1978. In addition, another $700,000 to $800,000 would be neces- 
sary to pay the increase for FY 1979 at such time as a merit 
plan was developed, probably in February or March of 1979. 

Trustee Marks said that he would be willing to take 
the risk of paying the personnel without the state funds in 
hand, but would be more comfortable with the vote if it included 
language protecting the University. Trustee Krumsiek suggested 
a preamble to this effect which was acceptable to the Committee 
Members, and on motion made and weconded, it was 

VOTED: In reliance upon correspondence to the Secre- 
tary of Administration and Finance of the Com- 
monwealth, John R. Buckley, from James A. Kelly 
Jr. , Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Com- 
mittee of the Legislature in 1978 and John J. 
Finnegan, Chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee of the Legislature in 1978, dated 
November 15, and October 12, 1978 respectively, 
correspondence from the Secretary of Adminis- 
tration and Finance to the President of the 
University dated November 17, 1978, and corre- 
spondence to the University from George Bennett, 
Director of the Office of Employee Relations 
for the Commonwealth in 1978, dated July 17, 
1978, each of which purports to represent and 
confirm that the intent of the 1978 session of 
the Legislature regarding Item 1500-2094 of 
Chapter 367 of the Acts of 1978 was to provide 
money for transfer to agencies of the Common- 
wealth including the University 



-2- 



I- 



t 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

so as to enable such agencies to provide com- 
pensation adjustments for those employed in 
such agencies who were not and are not a part 
of any recognized collective bargaining agree- 
ment as well as for those who were and are 
within such recognized collective bargaining 
units and who were, are, and will be monetary 
beneficiaries of such collective bargaining 
agreements, to recommend that the Board of 
Trustees authorize the President of the Uni- 
versity to implement compensation adjustments 
pursuant to guidelines established by the 
State Office of Employee Relations for profes- 
sional staff members not represented by an em- 
ployee organization certified by the Labor Re- 
lations Commission, and that the President re- 
port to the board at or before its March, 1979 
meeting the progress of any remedial legisla- 
tion which may have been filed intended to 
correct the language deficiency contained in 
the referred sections of the act. 



B&F 
12/5/78 



and further 



VOTED : 



To recommend to the Board of Trustees that the 
President of the University be delegated the au- 
thority to reclassify in accordance with the 
salary guidelines as established by the State 
Office of Employee Relations those professional 
positions for which a specific weekly salary 
rate or a limited weekly salary range presently 
exists . 



Chairman Crain then called attention to an important 
matter which was not included on the agenda. He said that the 
Executive Office of Administration and Finance had taken the po- 
sition that fringe benefits for individuals funded by grants and 
contracts and on trust funds are direct costs and, therefore, re- 
coverable by the state. Previously fringe benefits had been con- 
sidered indirect costs and to reclassify them would signifi- 
cantly decrease the amount of money available to the University 
for research. The retroactive payments requested would amount tc 
as much as $2.5 million. This would create an additional burden 
on the University, and infringes on the University's fiscal au- 
tonomy. Although other segments of public higher education are 
affected by this regulation, the University is hardest hit be- 
cause of its much greater research activities. 



-3- 



B&F 
12/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

It was the consensus of the Committee that this mat- 
ter should be on the agenda for its next meeting. There being 
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 



\ 




Dorothy Eicl 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



I 



f 



-4- 






■ 
■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ m 

■ 

1 

I 

■ 

I 

iS99 W' lWiWWScHS 

1 1 

■ 

1 

sow v - ■ 

1 el ■ 



"&*'& "'■'. 



S- *<*»»' ' 






'".:- ; -- -'y ' 



V ^:cv1 






fc-^ -*«»*. 



r«H 






„«)*« 















1>»5SS!«'|»'! 









^^.♦^zv 






i' ;;^;i5Sfc^ 



S*G 



^is 






























8& 














:<* ^m,* . 






■■■>■ ya& 

***■*£ 4*.® M.<* 




■.•:;:■'■:■■■' ^ '-^^,vv y 




I ftsHBC 

HT